EUS-guided coil injection therapy in the management of gastric varices: the first U.S. multicenter experience (with video).


Journal

Gastrointestinal endoscopy
ISSN: 1097-6779
Titre abrégé: Gastrointest Endosc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0010505

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jan 2024
Historique:
received: 27 12 2022
revised: 06 07 2023
accepted: 23 07 2023
pubmed: 3 8 2023
medline: 3 8 2023
entrez: 2 8 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Despite the significant morbidity associated with gastric variceal bleeding, there is a paucity of high-quality data regarding optimal management. EUS-guided coil injection therapy (EUS-COIL) has recently emerged as a promising endoscopic modality for the treatment of gastric varices (GV), particularly compared with traditional direct endoscopic glue injection. Although there are data on the feasibility and safety of EUS-COIL in the management of GV, these have been limited to select centers with particular expertise. The aim of this study was to report the first U.S. multicenter experience of EUS-COIL for the management of GV. This retrospective analysis included patients with bleeding GV or GV at risk of bleeding who underwent EUS-COIL at 10 U.S. tertiary care centers between 2018 and 2022. Baseline patient and procedure-related information was obtained. EUS-COIL entailed the injection of .018 inch or .035 inch hemostatic coils using a 22-gauge or 19-gauge FNA needle. Primary outcomes were technical success (defined as successful deployment of coil into varix under EUS guidance with diminution of Doppler flow), clinical success (defined as cessation of bleeding if present and/or absence of bleeding at 30 days' postintervention), and intraprocedural and postprocedural adverse events. A total of 106 patients were included (mean age 60.4 ± 12.8 years; 41.5% female). The most common etiology of GV was cirrhosis (71.7%), with alcohol being the most common cause (43.4%). Overall, 71.7% presented with acute GV bleeding requiring intensive care unit stay and/or blood transfusion. The most common GV encountered were isolated GV type 1 (60.4%). A mean of 3.8 ± 3 coils were injected with a total mean length of 44.7 ± 46.1 cm. Adjunctive glue or absorbable gelatin sponge was injected in 82% of patients. Technical success and clinical success were 100% and 88.7%, respectively. Intraprocedural adverse events (pulmonary embolism and GV bleeding from FNA needle access) occurred in 2 patients (1.8%), and postprocedural adverse events occurred in 5 (4.7%), of which 3 were mild. Recurrent bleeding was observed in 15 patients (14.1%) at a mean of 32 days. Eighty percent of patients with recurrent bleeding were successfully re-treated with repeat EUS-COIL. No significant differences were observed in outcomes between high-volume (>15 cases) and low-volume (<7 cases) centers. This U.S. multicenter experience on EUS-COIL for GV confirms high technical and clinical success with low adverse events. No significant differences were seen between high- and low-volume centers. Repeat EUS-COIL seems to be an effective rescue option for patients with recurrent bleeding GV. Further prospective studies should compare this modality versus other interventions commonly used for GV.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND AIMS OBJECTIVE
Despite the significant morbidity associated with gastric variceal bleeding, there is a paucity of high-quality data regarding optimal management. EUS-guided coil injection therapy (EUS-COIL) has recently emerged as a promising endoscopic modality for the treatment of gastric varices (GV), particularly compared with traditional direct endoscopic glue injection. Although there are data on the feasibility and safety of EUS-COIL in the management of GV, these have been limited to select centers with particular expertise. The aim of this study was to report the first U.S. multicenter experience of EUS-COIL for the management of GV.
METHODS METHODS
This retrospective analysis included patients with bleeding GV or GV at risk of bleeding who underwent EUS-COIL at 10 U.S. tertiary care centers between 2018 and 2022. Baseline patient and procedure-related information was obtained. EUS-COIL entailed the injection of .018 inch or .035 inch hemostatic coils using a 22-gauge or 19-gauge FNA needle. Primary outcomes were technical success (defined as successful deployment of coil into varix under EUS guidance with diminution of Doppler flow), clinical success (defined as cessation of bleeding if present and/or absence of bleeding at 30 days' postintervention), and intraprocedural and postprocedural adverse events.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 106 patients were included (mean age 60.4 ± 12.8 years; 41.5% female). The most common etiology of GV was cirrhosis (71.7%), with alcohol being the most common cause (43.4%). Overall, 71.7% presented with acute GV bleeding requiring intensive care unit stay and/or blood transfusion. The most common GV encountered were isolated GV type 1 (60.4%). A mean of 3.8 ± 3 coils were injected with a total mean length of 44.7 ± 46.1 cm. Adjunctive glue or absorbable gelatin sponge was injected in 82% of patients. Technical success and clinical success were 100% and 88.7%, respectively. Intraprocedural adverse events (pulmonary embolism and GV bleeding from FNA needle access) occurred in 2 patients (1.8%), and postprocedural adverse events occurred in 5 (4.7%), of which 3 were mild. Recurrent bleeding was observed in 15 patients (14.1%) at a mean of 32 days. Eighty percent of patients with recurrent bleeding were successfully re-treated with repeat EUS-COIL. No significant differences were observed in outcomes between high-volume (>15 cases) and low-volume (<7 cases) centers.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
This U.S. multicenter experience on EUS-COIL for GV confirms high technical and clinical success with low adverse events. No significant differences were seen between high- and low-volume centers. Repeat EUS-COIL seems to be an effective rescue option for patients with recurrent bleeding GV. Further prospective studies should compare this modality versus other interventions commonly used for GV.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37532106
pii: S0016-5107(23)02796-7
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2023.07.043
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

31-37

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: M. Arain: Consultant for Olympus, Boston Scientific, and Cook. K. K. K. Baig: Grant recipient from Olympus; and consultant for Ambu. A. Schulman: Consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and Microtech; and grant/research funding from GI Dynamics and Fractyl. V. Kushnir: Consultant for Boston Scientific, Olympus, Medtronic, and Noah Medical. J. Shah: Consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships.

Auteurs

Ahmad Najdat Bazarbashi (AN)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine/Barnes Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. Electronic address: bazarbashi@wustl.edu.

Elizabeth S Aby (ES)

Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

J Shawn Mallery (JS)

Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Abdul Hamid El Chafic (AH)

Division of Gastroenterology, Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.

Thomas J Wang (TJ)

Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Abdul Kouanda (A)

Division of Gastroenterology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Mustafa Arain (M)

Division of Gastroenterology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Daniel Lew (D)

Division of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, West Hollywood, California, USA.

Srinivas Gaddam (S)

Division of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, West Hollywood, California, USA.

Ramzi Mulki (R)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Alabama School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.

Kondal Kyanam Kabir Baig (KK)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Alabama School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.

Sagarika Satyavada (S)

Division of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

Amitabh Chak (A)

Division of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

Ashley Faulx (A)

Division of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

Brooke Glessing (B)

Division of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

Gretchen Evans (G)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Allison R Schulman (AR)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

James Haddad (J)

Division of Digestive and Liver Disease, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA.

Thomas Tielleman (T)

Division of Digestive and Liver Disease, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA.

Thomas Hollander (T)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.

Vladimir Kushnir (V)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.

Janak Shah (J)

Division of Gastroenterology, Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.

Marvin Ryou (M)

Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Classifications MeSH