Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis for acute esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with band ligation: A large observational study

BACKGROUND Esophageal variceal bleeding is a severe complication associated with liver cirrhosis and typically necessitates endoscopic hemostasis.The current standard treatment is endoscopic variceal ligation(EVL),and Western guidelines recom-mend antibiotic prophylaxis following hemostasis.However,given the impro-vements in prognosis for variceal bleeding due to advancements in the management of bleeding and treatments of liver cirrhosis and the global concerns regarding the emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria,there is a need to reassess the use of routine antibiotic prophylaxis after hemostasis.AIM To evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients treated for EVL.METHODS We conducted a 13-year observational study using the Tokushukai medical database across 46 hospitals.Patients were divided into the prophylaxis group(received antibiotics on admission or the next day)and the non-prophylaxis group(did not receive antibiotics within one day of admission).The primary outcome was composed of 6-wk mortality,4-wk rebleeding,and 4-wk spontaneous bacterial peritonitis(SBP).The secondary outcomes were each individual result and in-hospital mortality.A logistic regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting was used.A subgroup analysis was conducted based on the Child-Pugh classification to determine its influence on the primary outcome measures,while sensitivity analyses for antibiotic type and duration were also performed.RESULTS Among 980 patients,790 were included(prophylaxis:232,non-prophylaxis:558).Most patients were males under the age of 65 years with a median Child-Pugh score of 8.The composite primary outcomes occurred in 11.2%of patients in the prophylaxis group and 9.5%in the non-prophylaxis group.No significant differences in outcomes were observed between the groups(adjusted odds ratio,1.11;95%confidence interval,0.61-1.99;P=0.74).Individual outcomes such as 6-wk mortality,4-wk rebleeding,4-wk onset of SBP,and in-hospital mortality were not significantly different between the groups.The primary outcome did not differ between the Child-Pugh subgroups.Similar results were observed in the sensitivity analyses.CONCLUSION No significant benefit to antibiotic prophylaxis for esophageal variceal bleeding treated with EVL was detected in this study.Global reassessment of routine antibiotic prophylaxis is imperative.

Future directions of noninvasive prediction of esophageal variceal bleeding:No worry about the present computed tomography inefficiency

In this editorial,we comment on the minireview by Martino A,published in the recent issue of World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2023;15(12):681-689.We focused mainly on the possibility of replacing the hepatic venous pressure gradient(HVPG)and endoscopy with noninvasive methods for predicting esophageal variceal bleeding.The risk factors for bleeding were the size of the varices,the red sign and the Child-Pugh score.The intrinsic core factor that drove these changes was the HVPG.Therefore,the present studies investigating noninvasive methods,including computed tomography,magnetic resonance imaging,elastography,and laboratory tests,are working on correlating imaging or serum marker data with intravenous pressure and clinical outcomes,such as bleeding.A single parameter is usually not enough to construct an efficient model.Therefore,multiple factors were used in most of the studies to construct predictive models.Encouraging results have been obtained,in which bleeding prediction was partly reached.However,these methods are not satisfactory enough to replace invasive methods,due to the many drawbacks of different studies.There is still plenty of room for future improvement.Prediction of the precise timing of bleeding using various models,and extracting the texture of variceal walls using high-definition imaging modalities to predict the red sign are interesting directions to lay investment on.

Computed tomography for the prediction of oesophageal variceal bleeding:A surrogate or complementary to the gold standard?

In this editorial we comment on the in-press article in the World Journal of Gastrointestinal endoscopy about the role of computed tomography(CT)for the prediction of esophageal variceal bleeding.The mortality and morbidity are much increased in patients with chronic liver diseases when complicated with variceal bleeding.Predicting the patient at a risk of bleeding is extremely important and receives a great deal of attention,paving the way for primary prophylaxis either using medical treatment including carvedilol or propranolol,or endoscopic band ligation.Endoscopic examination and the hepatic venous pressure gradient are the gold standards in the diagnosis and prediction of variceal bleeding.Several non-invasive laboratory and radiological examinations are used for the prediction of variceal bleeding.The contrast-enhanced multislice CT is a widely used non-invasive,radiological examination that has many advantages.In this editorial we briefly comment on the current research regarding the use of CT as a non-invasive tool in predicting the variceal bleeding.

Computed tomography for prediction of esophageal variceal bleeding

This letter to the editor relates to the study entitled“The role of computed tomography for the prediction of esophageal variceal bleeding:Current status and future perspectives”.Esophageal variceal bleeding(EVB)is one of the most common and severe complications related to portal hypertension(PH).Despite marked advances in its management during the last three decades,EVB is still associated with significant morbidity and mortality.The risk of first EVB is related to the severity of both PH and liver disease,and to the size and endoscopic appearance of esophageal varices.Indeed,hepatic venous pressure gradient(HVPG)and esophagogastroduodenoscopy(EGD)are currently recognized as the“gold standard”and the diagnostic reference standard for the prediction of EVB,respectively.However,HVPG is an invasive,expensive,and technically complex procedure,not widely available in clinical practice,whereas EGD is mainly limited by its invasive nature.In this scenario,computed tomography(CT)has been recently proposed as a promising modality for the non-invasive prediction of EVB.While CT serves solely as a diagnostic tool and cannot replace EGD or HVPG for delivering therapeutic and physiological information,it has the potential to enhance the prediction of EVB more effectively when combined with liver disease scores,HVPG,and EGD.However,to date,evidence concerning the role of CT in this setting is still lacking,therefore we aim to summarize and discuss the current evidence concerning the role of CT in predicting the risk of EVB.

Comprehensive approach to esophageal variceal bleeding:From prevention to treatment

Esophageal variceal bleeding is a severe complication often associated with portal hypertension,commonly due to liver cirrhosis.Prevention and treatment of this condition are critical for patient outcomes.Preventive strategies focus on reducing portal hypertension to prevent varices from developing or enlarging.Primary prophylaxis involves the use of non-selective beta-blockers,such as propranolol or nadolol,which lower portal pressure by decreasing cardiac output and thereby reducing blood flow to the varices.Endoscopic variceal ligation(EVL)may also be employed as primary prophylaxis to prevent initial bleeding episodes.Once bleeding occurs,immediate treatment is essential.Initial management includes hemodynamic stabilization followed by pharmacological therapy with vasoactive drugs such as octreotide or terlipressin to control bleeding.Endoscopic intervention is the cornerstone of treatment,with techniques such as EVL or sclerotherapy applied to directly manage the bleeding varices.In cases where bleeding is refractory to endoscopic treatment,transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt may be considered to effectively reduce portal pressure.Long-term management after an acute bleeding episode involves secondary prophylaxis using betablockers and repeated EVL sessions to prevent rebleeding,complemented by monitoring and managing liver function to address the underlying disease.In light of new scientific evidence,including the findings of the study by Peng et al,this editorial aims to review available strategies for the prevention and treatment of esophageal varices.

Self-expanding metal stent for relieving the stricture after endoscopic injection for esophageal varices

BACKGROUND Esophageal stricture is one of the complications after esophageal varices sclero-therapy injection(ESI),and the incidence rate is between 2%-10%.AIM To explore the efficacy of self-expanding metal stent(SEMS)for the stricture after endoscopic injection with cyanoacrylate(CYA)and sclerotherapy for esophageal varices.METHODS We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy of SEMS to improve the stricture after endoscopic injection with CYA and sclerotherapy for esophageal varices in 4 patients from February 2023 to June 2023.RESULTS The strictures were improved in four patients after stenting.The stent was removed after two weeks because of chest pain with embedding into esophageal mucosa in one patient.The stent was removed after one month,however,the stent was reinserted because of the strictures happening again in two patients.The stent was removed after three months,however,the stent was reinserted because of the strictures happening again in one patient.The stent embedded into esophageal mucosa in three patients.There were 3 patients suffered reflux esophagitis,and the acid reflux was relieved by taking hydrotalcite.There was no other complication of esophageal perforation,bleeding from varices or infection.CONCLUSION SEMS may relieve the stricture which happened after endoscopic injection with CYA and sclerotherapy for esophageal varices.However,when we should remove the stent still needs to be explored.

Transparent cap adjusted the stent placed for stenosis after endoscopic injection of esophageal varices:A case report

BACKGROUND The stent embedded in the esophageal mucosa is one of the complications after stenting for esophageal stricture.We present a case of stent adjustment with the aid of a transparent cap after endoscopic injection of an esophageal varices stent.CASE SUMMARY A 61-year-old male patient came to the hospital with discomfort of the chest after the stent implanted for the stenosis because of endoscopic injection of esophageal varices.The gastroscopy was performed,and the stent embedded into the esophageal mucosa.At first,we pulled the recycling line for shrinking the stent,however,the mucosa could not be removed from the stent.Then a forceps was performed to remove the mucosa in the stent,nevertheless,the bleeding form the mucosa was obvious.And then,we used a transparent cap to scrape the mucosa along the stent,and the mucosa were removed successfully without bleeding.CONCLUSION A transparent cap helps gastroscopy to remove the mucosa embedded in the stent after endoscopic injection of the esophageal varices stent.

Biopsy forceps are useful for measuring esophageal varices in vitro

BACKGROUND To avoid acute variceal bleeding in cirrhosis,current guidelines recommend screening for high-risk esophageal varices(EVs)by determining variceal size and identifying red wale markings.However,visual measurements of EV during routine endoscopy are often inaccurate.AIM To determine whether biopsy forceps(BF)could be used as a reference to improve the accuracy of binary classification of variceal size.METHODS An in vitro self-made EV model with sizes ranging from 2 to 12 mm in diameter was constructed.An online image-based survey comprising 11 endoscopic images of simulated EV without BF and 11 endoscopic images of EV with BF was assembled and sent to 84 endoscopists.The endoscopists were blinded to the actual EV size and evaluated the 22 images in random order.RESULTS The respondents included 48 academic and four private endoscopists.The accuracy of EV size estimation was low in both the visual(13.81%)and BF-based(20.28%)groups.The use of open forceps improved the ability of the endoscopists to correctly classify the varices by size(small≤5 mm,large>5 mm)from 71.85%to 82.17%(P<0.001).CONCLUSION BF may improve the accuracy of EV size assessment,and its use in clinical practice should be investigated.

Non-invasive assessment of esophageal varices:Status of today

With increasing burden of compensated cirrhosis,we desperately need noninvasive methods for assessment of clinically significant portal hypertension.The use of liver and spleen stiffness measurement helps in deferring unnecessary endoscopies for low risk esophageal varices.This would reduce cost and patient discomfort.However,these special techniques may not be feasible at remote areas where still we need only biochemical parameters.More prospective studies validating the non-invasive risk prediction models are definitely needed.

Platelet counts to spleen diameter ratio:A promising noninvasive tool for predicting esophageal varices in cirrhosis patients

BACKGROUND Liver cirrhosis is the end stage of progressive liver fibrosis as a consequence of chronic liver inflammation,wherein the standard hepatic architecture is replaced by regenerative hepatic nodules,which eventually lead to liver failure.Cirrhosis without any symptoms is referred to as compensated cirrhosis.Complications such as ascites,variceal bleeding,and hepatic encephalopathy indicate the onset of decompensated cirrhosis.Gastroesophageal varices are the hallmark of clini-cally significant portal hypertension.AIM To determine the accuracy of the platelet count-to-spleen diameter(PC/SD)ratio to evaluate esophageal varices(EV)in patients with cirrhosis.METHODS This retrospective observational study was conducted at Tikur Anbessa Specia-lized Hospital and Adera Medical Center from January 1,2019,to December 30,2023.Data were collected via chart review and direct patient interviews using structured questionnaires.The data were exported to the SPSS software version 26 for analysis and clearance.A receiver operating characteristic curve was plotted for splenic diameter,platelet count,and PC/SD ratio to obtain sensitivity,speci-ficity,positive predictive value,negative predictive value,positive likelihood ratio,and negative likelihood ratio.RESULTS Of the 140 participants,67%were men.Hepatitis B(38%)was the most common cause of cirrhosis,followed by cryptogenic cirrhosis(28%)and hepatitis C(16%).Approximately 83.6%of the participants had endoscopic evidence of EV,whereas 51.1%had gastric varices.Decompensated cirrhosis and PC were associated with the presence of EV with adjusted odds ratios of 12.63(95%CI:3.16-67.58,P=0.001)and 0.14(95%CI:0.037-0.52,P=0.004),respectively.A PC/SD ratio<1119 had a sensitivity of 86.32%and specificity of 70%with area under the curve of 0.835(95%CI:0.736-0.934,P<0.001).CONCLUSION A PC/SD ratio<1119 predicts EV in patients with cirrhosis.It is a valuable,noninvasive tool for EV risk assess-ment in resource-limited settings.

Comparison of hepatic venous pressure gradient and endoscopic grading of esophageal varices

AIM: To determine the correlation between the hepatic venous pressure gradient and the endoscopic grade of esophageal varices.METHODS: From September 2009 to March 2013, a total of 176 measurements of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) were done in 146 patients. Each transjugular HVPG was measured twice, first using an end whole catheter (EH-HVPG), and then using a balloon catheter (B-HVPG). The HVPG was compared with the endoscopic grade of esophageal varices (according to the general rules for recording endoscopic findings of esophagogastric varices), which was recorded within a month of the measurement of HVPG.RESULTS: The study included 110 men and 36 women, with a mean age of 56.1 years (range, 43-76 years). The technical success rate of the pressure measurements was 100% and there were no complication related to the procedures. Mean HVPG was 15.3 mmHg as measured using the end hole catheter method and 16.5 mmHg as measured using the balloon catheter method. Mean HVPG (both EH-HVPG and B-HVPG) was not significantly different among patients with different characteristics, including sex and comorbid factors, except for cases with hepatocellular carcinoma (B-HVPG, P = 0.01; EH-HVPG, P = 0.02). Portal hypertension (&#x0003e; 12 mmHg HVPG) occurred in 66% of patients according to EH-HVPG and 83% of patients according to B-HVGP, and significantly correlated with Child&#x02019;s status (B-HVPG, P &#x0003c; 0.000; EH-HVGP, P &#x0003c; 0.000) and esophageal varies observed upon endoscopy (EH-HVGP, P = 0.003; B-HVGP, P = 0.006). One hundred and thirty-five endoscopies were performed, of which 15 showed normal findings, 27 showed grade 1 endoscopic esophageal varices, 49 showed grade 2 varices, and 44 showed grade 3 varices. When comparing endoscopic esophageal variceal grades and HVPG using univariate analysis, the P value was 0.004 for EH-HVPG and 0.002 for B-HVPG.CONCLUSION: Both EH-HVPG and B-HVPG showed a positive correlation with the endoscopic grade of esophageal varices, with B-HVPG showing a stronger correlation than EH-HVPG.

Effect of aluminum phosphate gel on prevention of early rebleeding after ligation of esophageal variceal hemorrhage

BACKGROUND Liver cirrhosis is the main cause of portal hypertension.The leading cause of death in patients with liver cirrhosis is its most common complication,esophageal variceal bleeding(EVB).Endoscopic variceal ligation(EVL)is recommended by many guidelines to treat EVB and prevent rebleeding;however,esophageal ulcers occur after treatment.Delayed healing of ulcers and unhealed ulcers lead to high rebleeding and mortality rates.Thus,the prevention of early postoperative rebleeding is of great significance in improving the quality of life and prognosis of patients.AIM To evaluate the efficacy of aluminum phosphate gel(APG)plus a proton pump inhibitor(PPI)in the prevention of early rebleeding after EVL in patients with EVB.METHODS The medical records of 792 patients who were diagnosed with EVB and in whom bleeding was successfully stopped by EVL at Shenzhen People’s Hospital,Guangdong Province,China from January 2015 to December 2020 were collected.According to the study inclusion and exclusion criteria,401 cases were included in a PPI-monotherapy group(PPI group),and 377 cases were included in a PPI and APG combination therapy(PPI+APG)group.We compared the incidence rates of early rebleeding and other complications within 6 wk after treatment between the two groups.The two-sample t-test,Wilcoxon rank-sum test,and chisquared test were adopted for statistical analyses.RESULTS No significant differences in age,sex,model for end-stage liver disease score,coagulation function,serum albumin level,or hemoglobin level were found between the two groups.The incidence of early rebleeding in the PPI+APG group(9/337;2.39%)was significantly lower than that in the PPI group(30/401;7.48%)(P=0.001).Causes of early rebleeding in the PPI group were esophageal ulcer(3.99%,16/401)and esophageal varices(3.49%,14/401),while those in the PPI+APG group were also esophageal ulcers(5/377;1.33%)and esophageal varices(4/377;1.06%);such causes were significantly less frequent in the PPI+APG group than in the PPI group(P=0.022 and 0.024,respectively).The early mortality rate within 6 wk in both groups was 0%,which was correlated with the timely rehospitalization of all patients with rebleeding and the conduct of emergency endoscopic therapy.The incidence of adverse events other than early bleeding in the PPI+APG group(28/377;7.43%)was significantly lower than that in the PPI group(63/401;15.71%)(P<0.001).The incidence of chest pain in the PPI+APG group(9/377;2.39%)was significantly lower than that in the PPI group(56/401;13.97%)(P<0.001).The incidence of constipation in the PPI+APG group(16/377;4.24%)was significantly higher than that in the PPI group(3/401;0.75%)(P=0.002)but constipation was relieved after patients drank more water or took lactulose.In the PPI and PPI+APG groups,the incidence rates of spontaneous peritonitis within 6 wk after discharge were 0.50%(2/401)and 0.53%(2/377),respectively,and those of hepatic encephalopathy were 0.50%(2/401)and 0.27%(1/377),respectively,presenting no significant difference(P>0.999).CONCLUSION PPI+APG combination therapy significantly reduces the incidence of early rebleeding and chest pain in patients with EVB after EVL.

Endoscopic treatment of esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension with a six-week mortality rate of approximately 20%. Patients with medium- or largesized varices can be treated for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding using two strategies: non-selective beta-blockers(NSBBs) or endoscopic variceal ligation(EVL). Both treatments are equally effective. Patients with acute variceal bleeding are critically ill patients. The available data suggest that vasoactive drugs, combined with endoscopic therapy and antibiotics, are the best treatment strategy with EVL being the endoscopic procedure of choice. In cases of uncontrolled bleeding, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt(TIPS) with polytetrafluoroethylene(PTFE)-covered stents are recommended. Approximately 60% of the patients experience rebleeding, with a mortality rate of 30%. Secondary prophylaxis should start on day six following the initial bleeding episode. The combination of NSBBs and EVL is the recommended management, whereas TIPS with PTFE-covered stents are the preferred option in patients who fail endoscopic and pharmacologic treatment. Apart from injection sclerotherapy and EVL, other endoscopic procedures, including tissue adhesives, endoloops, endoscopic clipping and argon plasma coagulation, have been used in the management of esophageal varices. However, their efficacy and safety, compared to standard endoscopic treatment, remain to be further elucidated. There are safety issues accompanying endoscopic techniques with aspiration pneumonia occurring at a rate of approximately 2.5%. In conclusion, future research is needed to improve treatment strategies, including novel endoscopic techniques with better efficacy, lower cost, and fewer adverse events.

New methods for the management of esophageal varices

Bleeding from esophageal varices (EVs) is a catastrophic complication of chronic liver disease. Many years ago, surgical procedures such as esophageal transection or distal splenorenal shunting were the only treatments for EVs. In the 1970s, interventional radiology procedures such as transportal obliteration, left gastric artery embolization, and partial splenic artery embolization were introduced, improving the survival of patients with bleeding EVs. In the 1980s, endoscopic treatment, endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS), and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), further contributed to improved survival. We combined IVR with endoscopic treatment or EIS with EVL. Most patients with EVs treated endoscopically required follow- up treatment for recurrent varices. Proper management of recurrent EVs can significantly improve patients’ quality of life. Recently, we have performed EVL at 2-mo (bimonthly) intervals for the management of EVs. Longer intervals between treatment sessions resulted in a higher rate of total eradication and lower rates of recurrence and additional treatment.

Predictors of esophageal varices and first variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis patients

To assess “predictors” of esophageal varices (EV) and variceal bleeding using non-invasive markers in Albanian patients diagnosed with liver cirrhosis. METHODSOne hundred thirty-nine newly diagnosed cirrhotic patients without variceal bleeding were included in this analysis. Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) to alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ratio (AST/ALT), AST to platelet ratio index (APRI), platelet count to spleen diameter (PC/SD), fibrosis-4-index (FIB-4), fibrosis index (FI) and King’s Score were measured for all participants. All patients underwent endoscopic assessment within two days of hospitalization. The major end point was the first esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) event. The diagnostic performance of “predictors” for the presence of EV and EVB were assessed by sensitivity and specificity values obtained from the receiver operating characteristics procedure. RESULTSFIB-4 was the only strong and significant “predictor” of esophageal varices (multivariable-adjusted OR = 1.57 for one unit increment; 95%CI: 1.15-2.14). Furthermore, a cut-off value of 3.23 for FIB-4 was a significant predictor of esophageal varices, with a sensitivity of 72%, a specificity of 58% and a proportion of area under the curve (AUC) of 66% (P = 0.01). During the follow-up (median: 31.5 mo; interquartile range: 11-59 mo), 34 patients (24%) experienced a first EVB. FIB-4 was a poor predictor of EVB (the AUC was only 51%) for a cut-off value of 5.02. Furthermore, the AUC of AST/ALT, APRI, PC/SD, FI, MELD and King’s Score ranged from 45% to 55%. None of the non-invasive markers turned out to be a useful predictor of EVB. CONCLUSIONDespite the low diagnostic accuracy, FIB-4 appears the most efficient non-invasive liver fibrosis marker which can be used as an initial screening tool for cirrhotic patients.

Hemodynamic analysis of esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis using color Doppler ultrasound

AIM： To study the portal hemodynamics and their relationship with the size of esophageal varices seen at endoscopy and to evaluate whether these Doppler ultrasound parameters might predict variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension. METHODS： One hundred and twenty cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices but without any previous bleeding were enrolled in the prospective study. During a 2-year observation period, 52 patients who had at least one episode of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage constituted the bleeding group, and the remaining 68 patients without any previous hemorrhage constituted the non-bleeding group. All patients underwent endoscopy before or after color Doppler-ultrasonic examination, and images were interpreted independently by two endoscopists. The control group consisted of 30 healthy subjects, matched to the patient group in age and gender. Measurements of diameter, flow direction and flow velocity in the left gastric vein （LGV） and the portal vein （PV） were done in all patients and controls using color Doppler unit. After baseline measurements, 30 min after oral administration of 75 g glucose in 225 mL, changes of the diameter, flow velocity and direction in the PV and LGV were examined in 60 patients with esophageal varices and 15 healthy controls. RESULTS： The PV and LGV were detected successfully in 115 （96%） and 105 （88%） of 120 cirrhotic patients, respectively, and in 27 （90%） and 21 （70%） of 30 healthy controls, respectively. Among the 120 cirrhotic patients, 37 had F1, 59 had F2, and 24 had F3 grade varices. Compared with the healthy controls, cirrhotic group had a significantly lower velocity in the PV, a significantly greater diameter of the PV and LGV, and a higher velocity in the LGV. In the cirrhotic group, no difference in portal flow velocity and diameter were observed between patients with or without esophageal variceal bleeding （EVB）. However, the diameter and blood flow velocity of the LGV were significantly higher for EVB （＋） group compared with EVB （-） group （P〈0.01）. Diameter of the LGV increased with enlarged size of varices. There were differences between F1 and F2, F1 and F3 varices, but no differences between F2 and F3 varices （P = 0.125）. However, variceal bleeding was more frequent in patients with a diameter of LGV 〉6 mm. The flow velocity in the LGV of healthy controls was 8.70＋1.91 cm/s （n = 21）. In patients with liver cirrhosis, it was 10.3＋2.1 cm/s （n = 12） when the flow was hepatopetal and 13.5＋2.3 cm/s （n = 87） when it was hepatofugal. As the size of varices enlarged, hepatofugal flow velocity increased （P〈0.01） and was significantly different between patients with F1 and F2 varices and between patients with F2 and F3 varices. Variceal bleeding was more frequent in patients with a hepatofugal flow velocity 〉15 cm/s （32 of 52 patients, 61.5%）. Within the bleeding group, the mean LGV blood flow velocity was 16.6＋2.62 cm/s. No correlation was observed between the portal blood flow velocity and EVB. In all healthy controls, the flow direction in the LGV was hepatopetal, toward the PV. In patients with F1 varices, flow direction was hepatopetal in 10 patients, to-and-fro state in 3 patients, and hepatofugal in the remaining 18. The flow was hepatofugal in 91% patients with F2 and all F3 varices. Changes in diameter of the PV and LGV were not significant before and after ingestion of glucose （PV： 1.41＋1.5 cm before and 1.46＋1.6 cm after; LGV： 0.57＋1.7 cm before and 0.60＋1.5 cm after）. Flow direction in the LGV was hepatopetal and to-and-fro in 16 patients and hepatofugal in 44 patients before ingestion of glucose. Flow direction changed to hepatofugal in 9 of 16 patients with hepatopetal and to-and-fro blood flow after ingestion of glucose. In 44 patients with hepatofugal blood flow in the LGV, a significant increase in hepatofugal flow velocity was observed in 38 of 44 patients （86%） with esophageal varices. There was a relationship between the percentage changes in flow velocity and the size of varices. Patients who responded excessively to food ingestion might have a high risk for bleeding. The changes of blood flow velocity in the LGV were greater than those in the PV （LGV： 28.3＋26.1%, PV： 7.2＋13.2%, P〈0.01）, whereas no significant changes in the LGV occurred before and after ingestion of glucose in the control subjects. CONCLUSION： Hemodynamics of the PV is unrelated to the degree of endoscopic abnormalities in patients with liver cirrhosis. The most important combinations are endoscopic findings followed by the LGV hemodynamics. Duplex-Doppler ultrasonography has no value in the identification of patients with cirrhosis at risk of variceal bleeding. Hemodynamics of the LGV appears to be superior to those of the PV in predicting bleeding.

Role of combined propofol and sufentanil anesthesia in endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophageal varices

AIM To investigate the efficacy and safety of a combination of sufentanil and propofol injection in patients undergoing endoscopic injection sclerotherapy(EIS) for esophageal varices(EVs). METHODS Patients with severe EVs who underwent EIS with sufentanil and propofol anesthesia between April 2016 and July 2016 at our hospital were reviewed. Although EIS and sequential therapy were performed under endotracheal intubation, we only evaluated the efficacy and safety of anesthesia for the first EIS procedure. Patients were intravenously treated with 0.5-1 μg/kg sufentanil. Anesthesia was induced with 1-2 mg/kg propofol and maintained using 2-5 mg/kg per hour of propofol. Information, regarding age, sex, weight, American Association of Anesthesiologists(ASA) physical status, Child-Turcotte-Pugh(CTP) classification, indications, preanesthetic problems, endoscopic procedure, successful completion of the procedure, anesthesia time, recovery time, and anesthetic agents, was recorded. Adverse events, including hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, and hypoxia, were also noted.RESULTS Propofol and sufentanil anesthesia was provided in 182 procedures involving 140 men and 42 women aged 56.1± 11.7 years(range, 25-83 years). The patients weighed 71.4 ± 10.7 kg(range, 45-95 kg) and had ASA physical status classifications of Ⅱ(79 patients) or Ⅲ(103 patients). Ninety-five patients had a CTP classification of A and 87 had a CTP classification of B. Intravenous anesthesia was successful in all cases. The mean anesthesia time was 33.1 ± 5.8 min. The mean recovery time was 12.3 ± 3.7 min. Hypotension occurred in two patients(1.1%, 2/182). No patient showed hypertension during the endoscopic therapy procedure. Bradycardia occurred in one patient(0.5%, 1/182), and hypoxia occurred in one patient(0.5%, 1/182). All complications were easily treated with no adverse sequelae. All endoscopic procedures were completed successfully.CONCLUSION The combined use of propofol and sufentanil injection in endotracheal intubation-assisted EIS for EVs is effective and safe.

Computed tomography vs liver stiffness measurement and magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients:A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Computed tomography(CT),liver stiffness measurement(LSM),and magnetic resonance imaging(MRI)are non-invasive diagnostic methods for esophageal varices(EV)and for the prediction of high-bleeding-risk EV(HREV)in cirrhotic patients.However,the clinical use of these methods is controversial.AIM To evaluate the accuracy of LSM,CT,and MRI in diagnosing EV and predicting HREV in cirrhotic patients.METHODS We performed literature searches in multiple databases,including Pub Med,Embase,Cochrane,CNKI,and Wanfang databases,for articles that evaluated the accuracy of LSM,CT,and MRI as candidates for the diagnosis of EV and prediction of HREV in cirrhotic patients.Summary sensitivity and specificity,positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio,diagnostic odds ratio,and the areas under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves were analyzed.The quality of the articles was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 tool.Heterogeneity was examined by Q-statistic test and I2 index,and sources of heterogeneity were explored using metaregression and subgroup analysis.Publication bias was evaluated using Deek’s funnel plot.All statistical analyses were conducted using Stata12.0,Meta Disc1.4,and Rev Man5.3.RESULTS Overall,18,17,and 7 relevant articles on the accuracy of LSM,CT,and MRI in evaluating EV and HREV were retrieved.A significant heterogeneity was observed in all analyses(P<0.05).The areas under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves of LSM,CT,and MRI in diagnosing EV and predicting HREV were 0.86(95%confidence interval[CI]:0.83-0.89),0.91(95%CI:0.88-0.93),and 0.86(95%CI:0.83-0.89),and 0.85(95%CI:0.81-0.88),0.94(95%CI:0.91-0.96),and 0.83(95%CI:0.79-0.86),respectively,with sensitivities of 0.84(95%CI:0.78-0.89),0.91(95%CI:0.87-0.94),and 0.81(95%CI:0.76-0.86),and 0.81(95%CI:0.75-0.86),0.88(95%CI:0.82-0.92),and 0.80(95%CI:0.72-0.86),and specificities of 0.71(95%CI:0.60-0.80),0.75(95%CI:0.68-0.82),and 0.82(95%CI:0.70-0.89),and 0.73(95%CI:0.66-0.80),0.87(95%CI:0.81-0.92),and 0.72(95%CI:0.62-0.80),respectively.The corresponding positive likelihood ratios were 2.91,3.67,and 4.44,and 3.04,6.90,and2.83;the negative likelihood ratios were 0.22,0.12,and 0.23,and 0.26,0.14,and 0.28;the diagnostic odds ratios were 13.01,30.98,and 19.58,and 11.93,49.99,and 10.00.CT scanner is the source of heterogeneity.There was no significant difference in diagnostic threshold effects(P>0.05)or publication bias(P>0.05).CONCLUSION Based on the meta-analysis of observational studies,it is suggested that CT imaging,a non-invasive diagnostic method,is the best choice for the diagnosis of EV and prediction of HREV in cirrhotic patients compared with LSM and MRI.

Portal hemodynamics as predictors of high risk esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients

AIM： To evaluate portal hypertension parameters in liver cirrhosis patients with and without esophageal varices （EV）. METHODS： A cohort of patients with biopsy confirmed liver cirrhosis was investigated endoscopically and with color Doppler ultrasonography as a possible noninvasive predictive tool. The relationship between portal hemodynamics and the presence and size of EV was evaluated using uni- and multivariate approaches. RESULTS： Eighty five consecutive cirrhotic patients （43 men and 42 women） were enrolled. Mean age （± SD） was 47.5 （± 15.9）. Portal vein diameter （13.88 ± 2.42 vs 12.00 ± 1.69, P 〈 0.0005） and liver vascular index （8.31 ± 2.72 vs 17.8 ± 6.28, P 〈 0.0005） were found to be significantly higher in patients with EV irrespective of size and in patients with large varices （14.54 ± 1.48 vs 13.24 ± 2.55, P 〈 0.05 and 6.45 ± 2.78 v$10.96 ± 5.05, P 〈 0.0005, respectively）, while portal vein flow velocity （13.25 ± 3.66 vs 20.25 ± 5.05, P 〈 0.0005）, congestion index （CI） （0.11 ± 0.03 vs 0.06 ± 0.03, P 〈 0.0005）, portal hypertensive index （2.62 ± 0.79 vs 1.33 ± 0.53, P 〈 0.0005）, and hepatic （0.73 ± 0.07 vs 0.66 ± 0.07, P 〈 0.001） and splenic artery resistance index （R/） （0.73 ± 0.06 vs 0.62 ± 0.08, P 〈 0.0005） were significantly lower. A logistic regression model confirmed spleen size （P = 0.002, AUC 0.72） and portal hypertensive index （P = 0.040, AUC 0.79） as independent predictors for the occurrence of large esophageal varices （LEV）. CONCLUSION： Our data suggest two independent situations for beginning endoscopic evaluation of compensated cirrhotic patients： Portal hypertensive index 〉 2.08 and spleen size 〉 15.05 cm. These factors may help identifying patients with a low probability of LEV who may not need upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Platelet count/spleen diameter ratio to predict esophageal varices in Mexican patients with hepatic cirrhosis

AIM: To validate whether the platelet count/spleen size ratio can be used to predict the presence of esophageal varices in Mexican patients with hepatic cirrhosis.