Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) without resection combined with single-incision needle-knife (SINK) biopsy sampling may have a positive impact on small GI subepithelial tumor (SET) management, but the method needs to be tested. The aim was to evaluate the feasibility of this strategy in small-sized SETs.
This prospective multicenter observational cohort study in 7 centers included patients with SETs ≤15 mm (confirmed by EUS) between March 2017 and March 2020. The primary outcome was clinical success at 4 weeks, defined as complete SET disappearance on EUS. Secondary outcomes were long-term (1-year) clinical success, technical difficulty level, clinical impact, yield pathology, and safety.
Of 273 patients screened, 122 (62.3% women; mean age, 60.9 ± 13.2 years) were included with SETs (mean size, 9 ± 2.8 mm; gastric location, 77%; superficial layer dependence, 63%). The primary endpoint was achieved in 73.6% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.8-81.2). At the 1-year follow-up, the success rate was 68.4% (95% CI, 59.1-76.8). A favorable clinical impact was observed in 97 cases (79.5%; 95% CI, 71.3-86.3). Pathology diagnosis was known in 70%. Potentially malignant lesions were present in 24.7%. The related adverse events rate was 4.1% (95% CI, 1.3-9.3; all mild: 2 bleeding, 2 abdominal pain). On multivariable analysis, the ≤10-mm SET group was associated with a greater success rate (1 year, 87%; relative risk, 5.07; 95% CI, 2.63-9.8) and clinical impact rate (92.7%; relative risk, 6.15; 95% CI, 2.72-13.93).
EBL plus SINK biopsy sampling seems to be feasible and safe, and it may offer a favorable clinical impact in small-sized SETs. In particular, SETs ≤10 mm are the best candidates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03247231.).

To date, no prospective study has compared the safety and efficacy of band-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (BA-EMR) with those of endoscopic dissection (ESD) for the treatment of submucosal tumors (SMTs) in the gastric fundus. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of BA-EMR with those of ESD for SMTs ≤ 1.5 cm in the gastric fundus.
In total, 62 patients with SMTs ≤ 1.5 cm in the gastric fundus underwent band ligation; the lesions that could be completely ligated were excised using a snare, while others were removed by ESD.
Of 62 patients, 42 had their lesions completely ligated by the band and underwent BA-EMR, while 20 had lesions that could not be completely ligated and underwent ESD. The average tumor size was 0.94 ± 0.16 and 1.30 ± 0.16 cm in the BA-EMR and ESD groups, respectively. Compared with ESD, BA-EMR had significantly fewer complications and a significantly shorter mean operating time and hospital stay.
BA-EMR is a safe and effective method for small SMTs in the gastric fundus, but is only suitable for SMTs < 1.2 cm. For small SMTs (< 1.2 cm) in the gastric fundus, BA-EMR may simplify the treatment procedure, shorten the operation time, and reduce complications.

UNASSIGNED: Endoscopic band ligation (EBL), used for the treatment of colonic diverticular bleeding, has a lower rebleeding rate than endoscopic clipping. However, different devices are used in Japan and the Western countries; no animal studies have been conducted to elucidate the safety of such devices. We compared two EBL devices, the first used in Japan and the second used in Western countries.
UNASSIGNED: The Japanese and Western EBL devices were compared by assessing the EBL safety at 40 sites in an animal model with a normal colon that is anatomically similar to the human colon. Macroscopic and pathological examinations were performed to evaluate the layer ligated by the band and the presence of perforation. The findings on day 1 and day 7 after EBL were compared. The ligated layer was the muscularis propria at 39 sites; the layer was not evaluated at one site where the band was unintentionally removed during the endoscopic procedure. Pathologically, there was no perforation at any of the assessed sites. There was no statistical difference in any of the pathological variables between the two devices or between days 1 and 7 after EBL. The total procedure time was significantly shorter with the Western EBL device.
UNASSIGNED: In this animal study, both evaluated devices were safe for EBL, without differences in the macroscopic and pathological variables after EBL. Ligation of the muscularis propria layer did not result in perforation.

BACKGROUND: Gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) is characterized by mucosal and submucosal vascular ectasia causing recurrent hemorrhage and thus, chronic anemia, in patients with cirrhosis. Treatment with argon plasma coagulation (APC) is an effective and safe method, but requires multiple sessions of endoscopic therapy. Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) was found to be a good alternative for APC as a treatment for GAVE, especially in refractory cases. The aim of this prospective randomized controlled study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EBL, as compared to APC, in the treatment of GAVE and gastric fundal vascular ectasia (GFVE).
METHODS: A total of 88 cirrhotic patients with GAVE were prospectively randomized to endoscopic treatment with either EBL or APC, every 2 weeks until complete obliteration was accomplished; then they were followed up endoscopically after 6 months, plus they had monthly measurement of hemoglobin levels during that period.
RESULTS: We describe the presence of mucosal and submucosal lesions in the gastric fundal area that were similar to those found in GAVE in 13 patients (29.5%) of the EBL group and 9 patients (20.5%) of the APC group; we named this GFVE. In these cases, we treated the fundal lesions with the same techniques we had used for treating GAVE, according to the randomization. We found that EBL significantly decreased the number of sessions required for complete obliteration of the lesions (2.98 sessions compared to 3.48 sessions in the APC group (p < 0.05)). Hemoglobin levels increased significantly after obliteration of the lesions in both groups, compared to pretreatment values (p < 0.05), but with no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05); however, the EBL group of patients required a significantly smaller number of units of blood transfusion than the APC group of patients (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in adverse events nor complications between the two groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: This study described and histologically proved the presence of GFVE occurring comcomitantly with GAVE in cirrhotic patients. We showed that GFVE can be successfully managed by EBL or APC. Our study revealed that EBL is more effective and is comparable in safety to APC, in the treatment of GAVE and GFVE in cirrhotic patients.

OBJECTIVE: Variceal recurrence following endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is common. Esophageal collateral veins (ECV) are observed by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in patients with portal hypertension. The aim of the present study was to assess the role of EUS in predicting the recurrence of esophageal varices following EBL.
METHODS: Forty patients who had undergone EBL for eradication of varices were examined over a 12-month period to detect variceal recurrence. EUS was performed before ligation to detect and describe the type, grade, and the number of ECV. EUS findings obtained prior to EBL were compared in the variceal recurrence and non-recurrence groups.
RESULTS: Of the 40 patients, 19 (47.5%) had variceal recurrence within 12 months of EBL. Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that severe peri-ECV (p < 0.001), multiple peri-ECV (p < 0.001), and the presence of perforating veins (p < 0.014) were statistically significantly related to the variceal recurrence after EBL. Multivariate logistic regression model found that only severe peri-ECV (odds ratio [OR] = 24.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.34-253.78) and multiple peri-ECV (OR = 24.39; 95% CI: 2.34-253.78) remained as independent prognostic factors for variceal recurrence. The sensitivity and specificity of multivariate logistic regression model in predicting variceal recurrence was 89.2% and 90.5%, respectively (prognostic value (AUC) = 0.946).
CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence rate of esophageal varices after EBL is high (47.5%). EUS can clearly depict ECV and has a value in predicting variceal recurrence after EBL; severe peri-ECV and multiple peri-ECV were significant and independent prognostic factors associated with variceal recurrence risk.