Endoscopic injection of cyanoacrylate glue versus other endoscopic procedures for acute bleeding gastric varices in people with portal hypertension

To determine the prevalence and natural history of gastric varices, we prospectively studied 568 patients (393 bleeders and 175 nonbleeders) with portal hypertension (cirrhosis in 301 patients, noncirrhotic portal fibrosis in 115 patients, extrahepatic portal vein obstruction in 117 patients and hepatic venous outflow obstruction in 35 patients). Primary (present at initial examination) gastric varices were seen in 114 (20%) patients; more were present in bleeders than in non-bleeders (27% vs. 4%, respectively; p < 0.001). Secondary (occurring after obliteration of esophageal varices) gastric varices developed in 33 (9%) patients during follow-up of 24.6 +/- 5.3 mo. Gastric varices (compared with esophageal varices) bled in significantly fewer patients (25% vs. 64%, respectively). Gastric varices had a lower bleeding risk factor than did esophageal varices (2.0 +/- 0.5 vs. 4.3 +/- 0.4, respectively) but bled more severely (4.8 +/- 0.6 vs. 2.9 +/- 0.3 transfusion units per patient, respectively). Once a varix bled, mortality was more likely (45%) in gastric varix patients. Gastric varices were classified as gastroesophageal or isolated gastric varices. Type 1 gastroesophageal varices (lesser curve varices) were the most common (75%). After obliteration of esophageal varices, type 1 gastroesophageal varices disappeared in 59% of patients and persisted in the remainder; bleeding from persistent gastroesophageal varices was more common than it was from gastroesophageal varices that were obliterated (28% vs. 2%, respectively; p < 0.001). Type 2 gastroesophageal varices, which extend to greater curvature, bled often (55%) and were associated with high mortality. Type 1 isolated gastric varices patients had only fundal varices, with a high (78%) incidence of bleeding.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Gastric variceal bleeding is a catastrophic event. Both cyanoacrylate injection and banding ligation have been proven to be effective in the management of bleeding gastric varices. This study was performed to compare the efficacy and complications of both the modalities. Cirrhotic patients with a history of gastric variceal bleeding were randomized to 2 groups. The group receiving endoscopic obturation (group A) comprised 31 patients and the group receiving band ligation (group B) comprised 29 patients. Butyl cyanoacrylate and pneumatic-driven ligator were applied, respectively. Treatment was repeated regularly until obliteration of gastric varices. Active bleeding occurred in 15 patients in group A and 11 patients in group B. Initial hemostatic rate (defined as no bleeding for 72 hours after treatment) was 87% in group A and 45% in group B (P = .03). The sessions required to achieve variceal obliteration and obliteration rates were similar in both the groups. However, rebleeding rates were significantly higher in group B (54%) than group A (31%) (P = .0005). Treatment-induced ulcer bleeding occurred in 2 patients (7%) in group A and 8 patients (28%) in group B (P = .03). The amount of blood transfusions required were also higher in group B than group A (4.2 +/- 1.3 vs. 2.6 +/- 0.9 units, respectively) (P < .01). Nine patients of group A and 14 patients of group B died (P = .05). In conclusion, endoscopic obturation using cyanoacrylate proved more effective and safer than band ligation in the management of bleeding gastric varices.

Progression of gastric variceal hemorrhage (GVH) is poorer than esophageal variceal bleeding. However, data on its optimal treatment are limited. We designed a prospective study to compare the efficacy of endoscopic band ligation (GVL) and endoscopic N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate injection (GVO). Liver patients with cirrhosis with or without concomitant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and patients presenting with acute GVH were randomized into two treatment groups. Forty-eight patients received GVL, and another 49 patients received GVO. Both treatments were equally successful in controlling active bleeding (14/15 vs. 14/15, P = 1.000). More of the patients who underwent GVL had GV rebleeding (GVL vs. GVO, 21/48 vs. 11/49; P = .044). The 2-year and 3-year cumulative rate of GV rebleeding were 63.1% and 72.3% for GVL, and 26.8% for both periods with GVO; P = .0143, log-rank test. The rebleeding risk of GVL was sustained throughout the entire follow-up period. Multivariate Cox regression indicated that concomitance with HCC (relative hazard: 2.453, 95% CI: 1.036-5.806, P = .041) and the treatment method (GVL vs. GVO, relative hazard: 2.660, 95% CI: 1.167-6.061, P = .020) were independent factors predictive of GV rebleeding. There was no difference in survival between the two groups. Severe complications attributable to these two treatments were rare. In conclusion, the efficacy of GVL to control active GVH appears not different to GVO, but GVO is associated with a lower GV rebleeding rate.