Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Liver Research logoLink to Liver Research
editorial
. 2020 Dec 31;5(1):7–10. doi: 10.1016/j.livres.2020.12.004

Endoscopic sequential therapy for portal hypertension: Concept and clinical efficacy☆

Xing Wang a,b, Bin Wu a,b,∗
PMCID: PMC11791813  PMID: 39958924

Variceal bleeding is the most dreadful complication of liver cirrhosis and adversely affected 6.8 million people worldwide in 2017, with up to 80% 5-year mortality.1,2 Endoscopic therapies have played a pivotal role in the management of variceal bleeding for more than three decades, and in recent years, the rebleeding rate and bleeding-related mortality at 1 year have been reduced from 60% to 30% and 50% to 15–20%, respectively.3, 4, 5 Complete eradication of esophageal varices (EV), which can be obtained by repeated sessions of operational endoscopies, was recommended as the therapeutic goal of endoscopic treatment by recent clinical guidelines.1,6 However, endoscopic treatment for gastric varices (GV) is still challenging, and there is no consensus on the criterion for GV eradication or obliteration. To date, a standard endoscopic protocol integrating treatment for both EV and GV has not been established. Since over 80% of patients admitted for liver cirrhosis in tertiary healthcare centers present with high-risk esophago-gastric varices (EGV) and require endoscopic therapy,7 a standard but individualized endoscopic solution for treating both EV and GV is highly needed. Therefore, we herein introduce our systematic solution of endoscopic sequential therapy (EST) in terms of concept, performance and clinical efficacy. This solution integrates EV and GV treatment, emphasizes complete variceal eradication, and aims to sustain variceal remission and improve long-term prognosis.

1. Concept of EST

The concept of EST is derived from endoscopic combination therapy. Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is currently the mainstay for the treatment of EV and gastroesophageal varices (GOV) proximal to the esophageal-gastric (E-G) junction, while endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) is not the priority choice but is still useful for small remnant varices as well as on-site EBL failure in some patients.8,9 Regarding GV, glue injection with N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate or 2-octyl-cyanoacrylate can be used in most patients except those with sole large isolated gastric varices (IGV).1 The recommendations of current guidelines and consensus regarding endoscopic treatment for EV and variant types of GV are summarized in Table 1.1,6,10, 11, 12, 13 However, most previous studies analyzed data on EV alone, and few studies evaluated patients undergoing endoscopic treatment for both EV and coexisting junctional or fundal GV. Considering that GV occurred in 50% of cirrhotic patients and contributed to 10–20% of variceal bleeding cases, complete occlusion of both EV and GV was supposed to be a more ideal endoscopic endpoint than EV eradication alone.11,14,15 Therefore, a solution integrating EV and GV therapy was proposed, and the performance principle was based on clinical practice guidelines in combination with our local expertise.6,11,12,16, 17, 18

Table 1.

Recommendations of practice guidelines and consensus regarding endoscopic options for treating different types of EGV in secondary prophylaxis.

Guidelines/consensus (year) Recommendations for EV Recommendations for GV
GOV1 GOV2 IGV1 IGV2
AASLD guidance (2017)1 EBL EBL or ECI ECIa ECIa EBL, ECI or othersb
EASL guideline (2018)10 EBL EBL or ECI ECI ECI N/A
UK guideline (2015)11 EBL EBL or ECIc ECI ECI ECI
Baveno VI consensus (2015)12 EBL EBL or ECI ECI ECI ECI
Japanese guideline (2016)6 EIS, or EIS + EBL ECI ECI ECI N/A
Chinese guideline (2016)13 EBL, EIS or EBL + EIS ECI, EBL or EIS ECI, EBL or EIS N/A N/A
Our EST principle (2020) EBL, EIS or EBL + EIS EBL or ECI ECI ECI N/A
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: AASLD, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases; EASL, European Association for the Study of the Liver; EBL, endoscopic band ligation; ECI, endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection; EGV, esophago-gastric varices; EIS, endoscopic injection sclerotherapy; EST, endoscopic sequential therapy; EV, esophageal varices; GOV, gastroesophageal varices; GV, gastric varices; IGV, isolated gastric varices; N/A, no formal recommendations available.

a

Recommended when transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) are not available.

b

Endosonographic coil placement and EIS were also recommended.

c

Recommended when coexisting with other types of GV.

2. Key points in performance and patient follow-up

2.1. General principle of performance

EST is a compound strategy of performing repeated endoscopic sessions until variceal eradication is achieved. The procedure was initiated in the early 2000s and evolved over time.19,20 Herein, we introduce the updated version of the procedure developed in our department. The endoscopic options comprise endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection (ECI), EBL and EIS, or any combination thereof. In general, GV proximal to the E-G junction and less than 10 mm in diameter with high-risk bleeding stigmata can be treated properly with either EBL or ECI according to the discretion and preference of operating physicians. For GV distal to the E-G junction, all high-risk GV regardless of size as well as those ≥10 mm in diameter should be treated with ECI at the initial visit. What follows are repeated EBL sessions for EV or additional ECI sessions for GV every 4 weeks. The follow-up interval may be extended to 6–12 weeks when the ECI session is performed due to a longer time for the reassessment of GV obliteration after glue injection.21 When EV became discontinuous or were surrounded by scars where EBL was inapplicable, EIS was performed for the remnant high-risk EV to achieve complete variceal eradication. Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) in combination with endoscopic therapy have been recommended as standard treatment for patients with EV, whether on primary prophylaxis or secondary prophylaxis.1 Although the evidence is not as strong as for EV, NSBBs are also suggested for GV patients on primary prophylaxis. However, for secondary prophylaxis, this medication may have beneficial effects only for GOV1 patients and should be initiated in a timely manner after the acute bleeding phase.1,3

2.2. ECI procedure

ECI was performed using a mixture of N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate and lipiodol at a 1:1 ratio. Due to multi-origin afferents to the GV, the selection of the injection site is challenging, especially for GOV2 and IGV type vessels.22 In principle, for GOV vessels, the injection site should be distal to the cardia and a short distance away from the rupture or clot point if any. Regarding IGV vessels, for which it is difficult to determine blood flow, the injection should be located in the middle of the bulging part of the varix. Moreover, endoscopic accessibility should also be considered to finally determine the injection site.23 The dosage of the mixture was determined by the operating endoscopist depending on the type and size of the GV. Severe complications associated with ECI include systemic embolization and early rebleeding during glue extrusion, which occurred in approximately 3% and 1% of patients, respectively. Injection at a constant speed and restricted mixture volume may help reduce the risk of complications.21

2.3. EIS procedure

EIS was performed using 1% lauromacrogol as the sclerosant for injection. No more than 5 mL of the agent was injected at each site, and the total amount did not exceed 20 mL for each session. Severe EIS-induced complications include esophageal stricture, esophageal perforation, bronchoesophageal fistula, and mediastinum-related complications.8,21 However, we did not observe the above complications in patients receiving EST in our endoscopy center, which may be because we performed only intravascular sclerosant injection, and a small amount of sclerosant was injected.

2.4. EBL procedure

EBL was performed using multiband ligators. The procedure started at or just below the E-G junction, and each varix was ligated in a step-ladder pattern, but no more than 7 bands were used for each session. In contrast to EIS, complications of EBL were usually mild and did not require specific medical treatment. However, post-band ulcer bleeding was the major adverse event, and it occured in 2.3–7.3% of patients.24 Intravenous proton pump inhibitors after the EBL procedure and sufficient doses of NSBBs may help prevent ulcer bleeding.21,24

2.5. Post-therapeutic follow-up

After the achievement of EGV eradication, we followed up with the patients at 6 months for the first visit and then at every 6–12 months for subsequent visits. When high-risk varices recurred, additional endoscopic treatment was used, and the specific option was selected at the discretion of physicians. Furthermore, the use of NSBBs should be maintained in a long term after EGV eradication to prevent rebleeding and variceal recurrence.25 The schematic workflow of EST is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

The updated workflow of EST and subsequent follow-up. Abbreviations: EBL, endoscopic band ligation; ECI, endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection; E-G junction, esophageal-gastric junction; EIS, endoscopic injection sclerotherapy; EST, endoscopic sequential therapy; EV, esophageal varices; GOV, gastroesophageal varices; GV, gastric varices; IGV, isolated gastric varices.

3. Effect of EST on the variceal eradication rate

3.1. EV eradication

Endoscopic therapy is effective in eradicating EV. The reported eradication rate of EV varies between 40% and 100% for EBL alone, EIS alone, or their combination.20,26,27 The rate may be higher when both endoscopic therapy and NSBBs are utilized. From the data of an observational cohort in which EST was applied in secondary prophylaxis patients, we found that the eradication rate was 85.4%, which is higher than most of prior evidence. EBL is considered to be equivalent to EIS in terms of the eradication rate, but the recurrence rate of post-therapeutic varices is much higher.6 Fortunately, additional EBL sessions can treat the recurrent varices in this situation with satisfactorily low procedure-related complications.3

3.2. GV eradication

Regarding endoscopic treatment of GV, in most patients with GOV1, GOV2 and overlapping GOV and IGV1, endoscopy therapy can be used, but the procedures are highly variant among institutions.15,18,28 GOV are considered an extension of EV and are suggested to be managed similar to EV, but EBL on large GOV may result in fatal recurrent GV bleeding.1 According to our experiences, only small-medium GOV (formation of varices F1–F2) located proximal to the E-G junction are eligible for EBL, whereas large GV (formation of varices F3), regardless of location and bleeding stigmata, should be treated with obturation therapy with tissue glue.29 Moreover, the criterion for the treatment endpoint has not been clearly defined. It is important to note that, for most patients, complete eradication with flattened or minimal GV upon air inflation may not be practical. Instead, a complete venous obturation, presented as the consolidation of the varices after ECI, should be achieved and is sufficient to prevent further rebleeding.30 It is worth noting that glue injection on GV is demanding, while incomplete obturation is associated with severe rebleeding events either from residual varices or during glue excretion.29 Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) can be used to examine the whole picture of collateral vessels around gastric fundus so that EUS-assisted glue injection can be more precise. Recent evidence has indicated the effectiveness of EUS in the selection of injection points during the procedure as well as the evaluation of the effect of intravascular obturation.31

4. Clinical effect of EST on rebleeding, mortality and variceal recurrence

4.1. Effect of EST on variceal rebleeding and mortality

As many as 60% of patients will experience rebleeding after the first episode of variceal bleeding without appropriate secondary prophylaxis. Endoscopic advances during past decades have substantially reduced the rebleeding rate to 30% at 1 year, while the 1-year mortality is approximately 30% for patients with acute bleeding and approximately 20% for patients on secondary prophylaxis.4,5,32,33 Limited data have shown that endoscopic variceal eradication can reduce the rebleeding rate to less than 10% at 1 year.16,20 Among patients undergoing EST for secondary prophylaxis, our recent study demonstrated that the 1-year rebleeding rate was 14.9% and 4.0% before and after variceal eradication, respectively, whereas the 1-year and 5-year mortality rates were 0.9% and 9.3%, respectively (unpublished data). Variceal eradication through EST can further reduce rebleeding based on routine endoscopic therapy and is associated with improved long-term prognosis, although the findings need external validation in further multicenter studies with large sample sizes.

4.2. Effect of EST on variceal recurrence

EBL is superior to EIS in terms of obtaining acute hemostasis and preventing rebleeding.1,3,11 However, EBL is also associated with a higher recurrence rate because banding does not affect the feeding vessels of varices, including periesophageal and paraesophageal varices.9,20,34 Recent data suggested that combining EBL and EIS might decrease the risk of variceal recurrence and achieve variceal eradication faster than EBL or EIS alone.3,9 Although EBL-EIS combination therapy is not recommended by practice guidelines as standard treatment for primary or secondary prophylaxis,11,12 a recent randomized controlled trial indicated that there was no significant difference between the combination therapy and EBL alone regarding complications, variceal recurrence and long-term prognosis, but the combination therapy spared endoscopic time and sessions at similar cost.34 It is interesting to note that in this aforementioned study, a very small amount of sclerosant (no more than 2 mL of 5% ethanolamine oleate) was injected into each varix, which is similar to our EST practice. In contrast, data issuing gastric variceal recurrence after ECI are limited, and a recent retrospective study from the United States reported rates of 27% and 46% at 1 year and 2 years, respectively.30 EUS is reported to be useful to obliterate deeper and invisible varices and assess variceal recurrence after endoscopic eradication, but additional resources and expertise are required. Debate remains on whether direct-vision endoscopy or sonographic endoscopy is the best choice for eradicating varices, and more randomized controlled studies are expected.31

5. Clinical effect of EST on portal pressure and hemodynamics

Previous studies have demonstrated that both EBL and EIS may cause an increase in the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG).34,35 In one randomized study, HVPG in the EBL group returned to baseline levels within 48 h after the treatment, but in the EIS group, the rise in HVPG sustained during the 5-day study period.35 The local effect of EBL on the mucosa and submucosa is presumed to be the reason for the transient increase in portal pressure, and the HVPG increase in the EIS group may be attributed to the systemic effect of occlusion and the endovascular effect.34 Considering that EIS is only occasionally used for remnant varices and the volume of sclerosant injected is small for the EST procedure, there should be no long-term effect on HVPG in patients receiving either EBL or EBL plus EIS treatment. On the other hand, although ECI has greatly decreased the rebleeding rate in secondary prophylaxis, no studies have directly investigated portal pressure or HVPG changes after treatment. In theory, intravascular injection with venous occlusion will result in elevated portal pressure; however, the glue would clot into hard matter and be excreted gradually within weeks to months after the treatment.27 In contrast to balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) with persistent elevated portal pressure, ECI is unlikely to increase portal pressure in a long-term setting.36 Apart from portal pressure, Doppler ultrasound investigations did not find significant changes in the direction and velocity of venous blood flow after EBL or EBL-EIS combination therapy.37,38 In addition, sonographic studies measuring cardiac output and mean arterial pressure did not find any significant change after initial or repeated EBL sessions. Therefore, EBL is presumed to have a trivial effect on systemic circulation. When measuring blood flow of the portal vein and superior mesenteric artery, an approximately 20% increase was noted, but the flow returned to the baseline level after repeated sessions. Hence, it may be concluded that EBL has a slightly transient effect on splanchnic hemodynamics.39 Recently, a novel technique for EUS-guided portal pressure measurement has provided a more convenient and direct way to evaluate portal venous pressure, while strong correlations were noted between EUS-guided and traditional percutaneous pressure measurements in an animal model study.40,41 More data from large-scale multicenter studies are highly expected before the potential widespread use of this technique in clinical practice.

In summary, EST is a rational and effective modality to eradicate EGV and improve patient prognosis. Meanwhile, the clinical impact of postoperative variceal recurrence in long-term follow-up awaits unveiling in the future. Portal and splanchnic hemodynamic alterations after sole glue injection or combination endoscopic therapy are unclear, and further investigations are greatly needed.

Authors’ contributions

X. Wang wrote the manuscript. B. Wu provided critical revision of the manuscript and supervised the work.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1501224) and the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province Team Project (2018B030312009) (B. Wu).

Footnotes

☆

Edited by Peiling Zhu and Genshu Wang.

References

  • 1.Garcia-Tsao G., Abraldes J.G., Berzigotti A., Bosch J. Portal hypertensive bleeding in cirrhosis: risk stratification, diagnosis, and management: 2016 practice guidance by the American Association for the study of liver diseases. Hepatology. 2017;65:310–335. doi: 10.1002/hep.28906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.GBD 2017 Cirrhosis Collaborators The global, regional, and national burden of cirrhosis by cause in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5:245–266. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30349-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lo G.H. Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension. Hepatol Int. 2018;12:91–101. doi: 10.1007/s12072-017-9828-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Pfisterer N., Dexheimer C., Fuchs E.M., et al. Betablockers do not increase efficacy of band ligation in primary prophylaxis but they improve survival in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018;47:966–979. doi: 10.1111/apt.14485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chalasani N., Kahi C., Francois F., et al. Improved patient survival after acute variceal bleeding: a multicenter, cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:653–659. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07294.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fukui H., Saito H., Ueno Y., et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis 2015. J Gastroenterol. 2016;51:629–650. doi: 10.1007/s00535-016-1216-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lv Y., Zuo L., Zhu X., et al. Identifying optimal candidates for early TIPS among patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding: a multicentre observational study. Gut. 2019;68:1297–1310. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Al-Khazraji A., Curry M.P. The current knowledge about the therapeutic use of endoscopic sclerotherapy and endoscopic tissue adhesives in variceal bleeding. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;13:893–897. doi: 10.1080/17474124.2019.1652092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Miyaaki H., Ichikawa T., Taura N., Miuma S., Isomoto H., Nakao K. Endoscopic management of esophagogastric varices in Japan. Ann Transl Med. 2014;2:42. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2014.05.02. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.European Association for the Study of the Liver EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with decompensated cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2018;69:406–460. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tripathi D., Stanley A.J., Hayes P.C., et al. U.K. guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients. Gut. 2015;64:1680–1704. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.de Franchis R., Baveno VI Faculty Expanding consensus in portal hypertension: report of the Baveno VI Consensus Workshop: stratifying risk and individualizing care for portal hypertension. J Hepatol. 2015;63:743–752. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2015.05.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chinese Society of Hepatology, Chinese Medical Association Chinese guidelines on the management of liver cirrhosis (in Chinese) Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2019;27:846–865. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-3418.2019.11.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Park S.W., Seo Y.S., Lee H.A., et al. Changes in cardiac varices and their clinical significance after eradication of esophageal varices by band ligation. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;2016:2198163. doi: 10.1155/2016/2198163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zeng X., Li N., Ma L., et al. Endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection with lauromacrogol for gastric varices: long-term outcomes and predictors in a retrospective cohort study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019;29:1135–1143. doi: 10.1089/lap.2019.0360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wang X., Wu B. Critical issues in the diagnosis and treatment of liver cirrhosis. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 2019;7:227–230. doi: 10.1093/gastro/goz024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cheng Y.S., Pan S., Lien G.S., et al. Adjuvant sclerotherapy after ligation for the treatment of esophageal varices: a prospective, randomized long-term study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;53:566–571. doi: 10.1067/mge.2001.114061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Jang W.S., Shin H.P., Lee J.I., et al. Proton pump inhibitor administration delays rebleeding after endoscopic gastric variceal obturation. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:17127–17131. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i45.17127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bohnacker S., Sriram P.V., Soehendra N. The role of endoscopic therapy in the treatment of bleeding varices. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2000;14:477–494. doi: 10.1053/bega.2000.0092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hou M.C., Lin H.C., Lee F.Y., Chang F.Y., Lee S.D. Recurrence of esophageal varices following endoscopic treatment and its impact on rebleeding: comparison of sclerotherapy and ligation. J Hepatol. 2000;32:202–208. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8278(00)80064-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hwang J.H., Shergill A.K., Acosta R.D., et al. The role of endoscopy in the management of variceal hemorrhage. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:221–227. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.07.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sharma M., Rameshbabu C.S. Collateral pathways in portal hypertension. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2012;2:338–352. doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2012.08.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Chen J., Zeng X.Q., Ma L.L., et al. Long-term efficacy of endoscopic ligation plus cyanoacrylate injection with or without sclerotherapy for variceal bleeding. J Dig Dis. 2016;17:252–259. doi: 10.1111/1751-2980.12331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Dueñas E., Cachero A., Amador A., et al. Ulcer bleeding after band ligation of esophageal varices: risk factors and prognosis. Dig Liver Dis. 2020;52:79–83. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2019.06.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Xu X., Guo X., Tacke F., Shao X., Qi X. Use of nonselective β blockers after variceal eradication in cirrhotic patients undergoing secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding: a critical review of current evidence. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2019;10 doi: 10.1177/2040622319862693. 2040622319862693. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lo G.H., Lai K.H., Cheng J.S., et al. The effects of endoscopic variceal ligation and propranolol on portal hypertensive gastropathy: a prospective, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;53:579–584. doi: 10.1067/mge.2001.114062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kumar A., Jha S.K., Sharma P., et al. Addition of propranolol and isosorbide mononitrate to endoscopic variceal ligation does not reduce variceal rebleeding incidence. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:892–901(e1). doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.05.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zhang M., Li P., Mou H., et al. Clip-assisted endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for gastric varices with a gastrorenal shunt: a multicenter study. Endoscopy. 2019;51:936–940. doi: 10.1055/a-0977-3022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Guo Y.W., Miao H.B., Wen Z.F., Xuan J.Y., Zhou H.X. Procedure-related complications in gastric variceal obturation with tissue glue. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23:7746–7755. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i43.7746. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chandra S., Holm A., El Abiad R.G., Gerke H. Endoscopic cyanoacrylate glue injection in management of gastric variceal bleeding: US tertiary care center experience. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2018;8:181–187. doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2017.11.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mohan B.P., Chandan S., Khan S.R., et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapy versus direct endoscopic glue injection therapy for gastric varices: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2020;52:259–267. doi: 10.1055/a-1098-1817. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Cho H., Nagata N., Shimbo T., et al. Recurrence and prognosis of patients emergently hospitalized for acute esophageal variceal bleeding: a long-term cohort study. Hepatol Res. 2016;46:1338–1346. doi: 10.1111/hepr.12692. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Krige J.E., Kotze U.K., Bornman P.C., Shaw J.M., Klipin M. Variceal recurrence, rebleeding, and survival after endoscopic injection sclerotherapy in 287 alcoholic cirrhotic patients with bleeding esophageal varices. Ann Surg. 2006;244:764–770. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000231704.45005.4e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mansour L., El-Kalla F., El-Bassat H., et al. Randomized controlled trial of scleroligation versus band ligation alone for eradication of gastroesophageal varices. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86:307–315. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.12.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Avgerinos A., Armonis A., Stefanidis G., et al. Sustained rise of portal pressure after sclerotherapy, but not band ligation, in acute variceal bleeding in cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2004;39:1623–1630. doi: 10.1002/hep.20236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Goral V., Yılmaz N. Current approaches to the treatment of gastric varices: glue, coil application, TIPS, and BRTO. Medicina (Kaunas) 2019;55:335. doi: 10.3390/medicina55070335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Mizumoto H., Matsutani S., Fukuzawa T., et al. Hemodynamics in the left gastric vein after endoscopic ligation of esophageal varices combined with sclerotherapy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2001;16:495–500. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1746.2001.02334.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Tayama C., Iwao T., Oho K., Toyonaga A., Tanikawa K. Effect of large fundal varices on changes in gastric mucosal hemodynamics after endoscopic variceal ligation. Endoscopy. 1998;30:25–31. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-993724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sato M. Effects of endoscopic variceal ligation on systemic and splanchnic hemodynamics in patients with cirrhosis. Kurume Med J. 1997;44:191–199. doi: 10.2739/kurumemedj.44.191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Huang J.Y., Samarasena J.B., Tsujino T., Chang K.J. EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement with a novel 25-gauge needle device versus standard transjugular approach: a comparison animal study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;84:358–362. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.02.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zhang W., Peng C., Zhang S., et al. EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement in patients with acute or subacute portal hypertension. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;S0016–5107(20):34531–34534. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Liver Research are provided here courtesy of Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University

RESOURCES