EUS-guided coil and glue injection versus endoscopic glue injection for gastric varices: International multicentre propensity-matched analysis.


Journal

Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver
ISSN: 1478-3231
Titre abrégé: Liver Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101160857

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Aug 2023
Historique:
revised: 28 04 2023
received: 12 01 2023
accepted: 22 05 2023
medline: 17 7 2023
pubmed: 3 6 2023
entrez: 3 6 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Gastric varices (GVs) are conventionally managed with endoscopic cyanoacrylate (E-CYA) glue injection. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided therapy using combination of coils and CYA glue (EUS-CG) is a relatively recent modality. There is limited data comparing the two techniques. This international multicentre study included patients with GV undergoing endotherapy from two Indian and two Italian tertiary care centres. Patients undergoing EUS-CG were compared with propensity-matched E-CYA cases from a cohort of 218 patients. Procedural details such as amount of glue, number of coils used, number of sessions required for obliteration, bleeding after index procedure rates and need for re-intervention were noted. Of 276 patients, 58 (male 42, 72.4%; mean age-44.3 ± 12.1 years) underwent EUS-CG and were compared with 118 propensity-matched cases of E-CYA. In the EUS-CG arm, complete obliteration at 4 weeks was noted in 54 (93.1%) cases. Compared to the E-CYA cohort, EUS-CG arm showed significantly lower number of session (1.0 vs. 1.5; p < 0.0001) requirement, lower subsequent-bleeding episodes (13.8% vs. 39.1%; p < 0.0001) and lower re-intervention (12.1% vs. 50.4%; p < 0.001) rates. On multivariable regression analysis, size of the varix (aOR-1.17; CI 1.08-1.26) and technique of therapy (aOR-14.71; CI 4.32-50.0) were significant predictors of re-bleeding. A maximum GV size >17.5 mm had a 69% predictive accuracy for need for re-intervention. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapy of GV using coil and CYA glue is a safe technique with better efficacy and lower re-bleeding rates on follow-up compared to the conventional endoscopic CYA therapy.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Gastric varices (GVs) are conventionally managed with endoscopic cyanoacrylate (E-CYA) glue injection. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided therapy using combination of coils and CYA glue (EUS-CG) is a relatively recent modality. There is limited data comparing the two techniques.
METHODOLOGY METHODS
This international multicentre study included patients with GV undergoing endotherapy from two Indian and two Italian tertiary care centres. Patients undergoing EUS-CG were compared with propensity-matched E-CYA cases from a cohort of 218 patients. Procedural details such as amount of glue, number of coils used, number of sessions required for obliteration, bleeding after index procedure rates and need for re-intervention were noted.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of 276 patients, 58 (male 42, 72.4%; mean age-44.3 ± 12.1 years) underwent EUS-CG and were compared with 118 propensity-matched cases of E-CYA. In the EUS-CG arm, complete obliteration at 4 weeks was noted in 54 (93.1%) cases. Compared to the E-CYA cohort, EUS-CG arm showed significantly lower number of session (1.0 vs. 1.5; p < 0.0001) requirement, lower subsequent-bleeding episodes (13.8% vs. 39.1%; p < 0.0001) and lower re-intervention (12.1% vs. 50.4%; p < 0.001) rates. On multivariable regression analysis, size of the varix (aOR-1.17; CI 1.08-1.26) and technique of therapy (aOR-14.71; CI 4.32-50.0) were significant predictors of re-bleeding. A maximum GV size >17.5 mm had a 69% predictive accuracy for need for re-intervention.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapy of GV using coil and CYA glue is a safe technique with better efficacy and lower re-bleeding rates on follow-up compared to the conventional endoscopic CYA therapy.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37269164
doi: 10.1111/liv.15630
doi:

Substances chimiques

Cyanoacrylates 0

Types de publication

Multicenter Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1783-1792

Informations de copyright

© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Références

Sarin SK, Lahoti D, Saxena SP, Murthy NS, Makwana UK. Prevalence, classification and natural history of gastric varices: a long-term follow-up study in 568 portal hypertension patients. Hepatology. 1992;16(6):1343-1349.
Garcia-Tsao G, Abraldes JG, 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(1):310-335.
Ryan BM, Stockbrugger RW, Ryan JM. A pathophysiologic, gastroenterologic, and radiologic approach to the management of gastric varices. Gastroenterology. 2004;126(4):1175-1189.
de Franchis R, Bosch J, Garcia-Tsao G, Reiberger T, Ripoll C, Baveno VIIF. Baveno VII - renewing consensus in portal hypertension. J Hepatol. 2022;76(4):959-974.
Soehendra N, Nam VC, Grimm H, Kempeneers I. Endoscopic obliteration of large esophagogastric varices with bucrylate. Endoscopy. 1986;18(1):25-26.
De Franchis R, Primignani M, eds. Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension. Semin Liver Dis. 1999;19:439-455.
Cheng LF, Wang ZQ, Li CZ, et al. Treatment of gastric varices by endoscopic sclerotherapy using butyl cyanoacrylate: 10 years' experience of 635 cases. Chin Med J (Engl). 2007;120(23):2081-2085.
Romero-Castro R, Ellrichmann M, Ortiz-Moyano C, et al. EUS-guided coil versus cyanoacrylate therapy for the treatment of gastric varices: a multicenter study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78(5):711-721.
Kok K, Bond RP, Duncan IC, et al. Distal embolization and local vessel wall ulceration after gastric variceal obliteration with N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate: a case report and review of the literature. Endoscopy. 2004;36(5):442-446.
Lee YT, Chan FK, Ng EK, et al. EUS-guided injection of cyanoacrylate for bleeding gastric varices. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;52(2):168-174.
Levy MJ, Wong Kee Song LM, Kendrick ML, Misra S, Gostout CJ. EUS-guided coil embolization for refractory ectopic variceal bleeding (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67(3):572-574.
Binmoeller KF, Weilert F, Shah JN, Kim J. EUS-guided transesophageal treatment of gastric fundal varices with combined coiling and cyanoacrylate glue injection (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74(5):1019-1025.
McCarty TR, Bazarbashi AN, Hathorn KE, Thompson CC, Ryou M. Combination therapy versus monotherapy for EUS-guided management of gastric varices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopic Ultrasound. 2020;9(1):6-15.
Mukkada RJ, Antony R, Chooracken MJ, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided coil or glue injection in post-cyanoacrylate gastric variceal re-bleed. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2018;37(2):153-159.
Robles-Medranda C, Nebel JA, Puga-Tejada M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided coils plus cyanoacrylate injection compared to endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection in the management of gastric varices. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;13(1):13-23.
Lobo MRA, Chaves DM, Dem DTH, Ribeiro IB, Ikari E, Dem EGH. Safety and efficacy of Eus-guided coil plus cyanoacrylate versus conventional cyanoacrylate technique in the treatment of gastric varices: a randomized controlled trial. Arq Gastroenterol. 2019;56(1):99-105.
Hashizume M, Kitano S, Yamaga H, Koyanagi N, Sugimachi K. Endoscopic classification of gastric varices. Gastrointest Endosc. 1990;36(3):276-280.
Laine L, Shah A. Randomized trial of urgent vs. elective colonoscopy in patients hospitalized with lower GI bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(12):2636-2641. quiz 42.
Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L, et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71(3):446-454.
Karstensen JG, Ebigbo A, Bhat P, et al. Endoscopic treatment of variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Cascade guideline. Endoscopy International Open. 2020;8(7):E990-E997.
Qiao W, Ren Y, Bai Y, Liu S, Zhang Q, Zhi F. Cyanoacrylate injection versus band ligation in the endoscopic management of acute gastric variceal bleeding: meta-analysis of randomized, controlled studies based on the PRISMA statement. Medicine. 2015;94(41):e1725.
Seewald S, Sriram PV, Naga M, et al. Cyanoacrylate glue in gastric variceal bleeding. Endoscopy. 2002;34(11):926-932.
Robles-Medranda C, Oleas R, Valero M, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided deployment of embolization coils and cyanoacrylate injection in gastric varices versus coiling alone: a randomized trial. Endoscopy. 2020;52(4):268-275.
Tayyem O, Bilal M, Samuel R, Merwat SK. Evaluation and management of variceal bleeding. Dis Mon. 2018;64(7):312-320.
Mishra SR, Sharma BC, Kumar A, Sarin SK. Primary prophylaxis of gastric variceal bleeding comparing cyanoacrylate injection and beta-blockers: a randomized controlled trial. J Hepatol. 2011;54(6):1161-1167.
Mishra SR, Chander Sharma B, Kumar A, Sarin SK. Endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection versus beta-blocker for secondary prophylaxis of gastric variceal bleed: a randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2010;59(6):729-735.
Chevallier O, Guillen K, Comby P-O, et al. Safety, efficacy, and outcomes of N-butyl cyanoacrylate glue injection through the endoscopic or radiologic route for variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2021;10(11):2298.
Fujii-Lau LL, Law R, Wong Kee Song LM, Levy MJ. Novel techniques for gastric variceal obliteration. Dig Endosc. 2015;27(2):189-196.
Weilert F, Binmoeller KF. EUS-guided vascular access and therapy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2012;22(2):303-314.
Mohan BP, Chandan S, Khan SR, 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(4):259-267.
Kumar A, Singh S, Madan K, Garg PK, Acharya SK. Undiluted N-butyl cyanoacrylate is safe and effective for gastric variceal bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(4):721-727.

Auteurs

Jayanta Samanta (J)

Department of Gastroenterology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.

Zaheer Nabi (Z)

Asian Institute of Gastroenterology (AIG), Hyderabad, India.

Antonio Facciorusso (A)

Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Gastroenterology Unit, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Jahnvi Dhar (J)

Department of Gastroenterology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.

Wahid Akbar (W)

Asian Institute of Gastroenterology (AIG), Hyderabad, India.

Aritra Das (A)

Care India Solutions, New Delhi, India.

Chhagan Lal Birda (CL)

Department of Gastroenterology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.

Benedetto Mangiavillano (B)

Humanitas Mater Domini, Italy.

Francesco Auriemma (F)

Humanitas Mater Domini, Italy.

Stefano Francesco Crino (SF)

Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The pancreas institute, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Rakesh Kochhar (R)

Department of Gastroenterology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.

Sundeep Lakhtakia (S)

Asian Institute of Gastroenterology (AIG), Hyderabad, India.

Duvvur Nageshwar Reddy (DN)

Asian Institute of Gastroenterology (AIG), Hyderabad, India.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH