UNASSIGNED: Gastric varices (GVs) are associated with a higher risk of uncontrolled bleeding and death when compared with esophageal varices. While endoscopic glue injection therapy has been traditionally used for secondary prophylaxis in GV, data regarding primary prophylaxis continue to emerge. Recently, EUS-guided therapies have been used in GV bleeding.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a comprehensive search of several major databases from inception to June 2022. Our primary goals were to estimate the pooled rates of treatment efficacy, GV obliteration, GV recurrence, and rebleeding with EUS-guided therapy in primary and secondary prophylaxis. Overall adverse events and technical failures were assessed. Random-effects model was used for our meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 % statistics.
UNASSIGNED: Eighteen studies with 604 patients were included. In primary prophylaxis, pooled rate of GV obliteration was 90.2% (confidence interval [CI], 81.1-95.2; I2 = 0). With combination EUS-glue and coil therapy, the rate was 95.4% (CI, 86.7%-98.5%; I2 = 0). Pooled rate of posttherapy GV bleeding was 4.9% (CI, 1.8%-12.4%; I2 = 0). In secondary prophylaxis, pooled rate of treatment efficacy was 91.9% (CI, 86.8%-95.2%; I2 = 12). With EUS-glue, EUS-coil, and combination EUS-glue and coil, the rates were 94.3% (CI, 88.9%-97.1%; I2 = 0), 95.5% (CI, 80.3%-99.1%; I2 = 0), and 88.7% (CI, 76%-95.1%; I2 = 14), respectively. Pooled rate of GV obliteration was 83.6% (CI, 71.5%-91.2%; I2 = 74). With EUS-glue, EUS-coil, and combination EUS-glue and coil, the rates were 84.6% (CI, 75.9%-90.6%; I2 = 31), 92.3% (CI, 81.1%-97.1%; I2 = 0), and 84.5% (CI, 50.8%-96.7%; I2 = 75), respectively. Pooled rates of GV rebleeding and recurrence were 18.1% (CI, 13.1%-24.3%; I2 = 16) and 20.6% (CI, 9.3%-39.5%; I2 = 66), respectively.
UNASSIGNED: Our analysis shows that EUS-guided therapy for GVs is technically feasible and clinically successful in both primary and secondary prophylaxis of GV.

UNASSIGNED: Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is important for emergency as well as prophylactic management of esophageal varices. Early bleeding after EVL is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Assessing the likelihood of early post-EVL bleeding and its determinants can help deciding therapeutic strategies for high-risk patients. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to identify predictors of early bleeding after EVL.
UNASSIGNED: A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted from 2000 to November 2021 for studies evaluating the incidence, predictors and outcome of post-EVL bleeding. Pooled odds ratios (OR), mean difference (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for prognostic variables.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 16 studies with data on 13,378 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among 34 parameters, 14 parameters were assessed for association with early bleeding after EVL. Lower hemoglobin at admission (MD = 1.11, 95% CI: -1.91 to -0.31), higher MELD score (MD = 2.00, 95% CI: 0.51-3.50), associated gastric varices (OR = 5.99, 95% CI: 1.06-33.90), higher number of bands (MD = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.02-0.97), and peptic esophagitis (OR = 11.38, 95% CI: 1.21-106.81) were significantly associated with increased risk of bleeding. However, there was significant heterogeneity among the studies with respect to all the analyzed parameters.
UNASSIGNED: Major predictors for early post-EVL bleeding in cirrhosis are admission hemoglobin level and MELD score, associated gastric varices, number of bands deployed during EVL, and peptic esophagitis on follow-up endoscopy. These risk factors may be useful for risk stratification after EVL in cirrhotics.

Ectopic varices are an uncommon cause of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with portal hypertension. A 43-year-old female with alcoholic cirrhosis developed massive hematochezia and hemorrhagic shock, requiring emergent angiography and image-guided intervention. Angiography revealed active extravasation from a branch of the right colic vein. The patient underwent percutaneous transhepatic embolization of the bleeding colic vein with technical success demonstrated on post-embolization angiography. Treatment of bleeding ectopic varices may require endoscopic, image-guided, or surgical approaches.

BACKGROUND: Portal hypertension is secondary to either cirrhotic or non-cirrhotic causes, and complicating pregnancy poses a challenge to the treating team. A systematic review was performed to determine maternal and perinatal outcomes in women with portal hypertension. Outcomes were compared among those with cirrhotic (CPH) with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH) as well as non-cirrhotic portal fibrosis (NCPF) with extra-hepatic portal vein obstruction (EHPVO).
METHODS: Medline and EMBASE databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes among pregnant women with portal hypertension. Reference lists from relevant papers and reviews were hand-searched for appropriate citations. Data were extracted to describe maternal complications, obstetric and neonatal outcomes. A random-effects model was used to derive pooled estimates of various outcomes, and final estimates were reported as percentages with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Cumulative, sequential and sensitivity analysis was studied to assess the temporal trends of outcomes over the period.
RESULTS: Information on 895 pregnancies among 581 patients with portal hypertension was included from 26 studies. Portal hypertension was diagnosed during pregnancy in 10% (95% CI 4-24%). There were 22 maternal deaths (0%, 95% CI 0-1%), mostly following complications from variceal bleeding or hepatic decompensation. Variceal bleeding complicated in 14% (95% CI 9-20%), and endoscopic interventions were performed in 12% (95% CI 8-17%) during pregnancy. Decompensation of liver function occurred in 7% (95% CI 3-12%). Thrombocytopenia was the most common complication (41%, 95% CI 23-60%). Miscarriages occurred in 14% (95% CI 8-20%), preterm birth in 27% (95% CI 19-37%), and low birth weights in 22% (95% CI 15-30%). Risk of postpartum hemorrhage was higher (RR 5.09, 95% CI 1.84-14.12), and variceal bleeding was lower (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30-0.86) among those with CPH compared to NCPH. Risk of various outcomes was comparable between NCPF and EHPVO.
CONCLUSIONS: One in ten pregnancies complicated with portal hypertension is diagnosed during pregnancy, and thrombocytopenia is the most common complication. Hepatic decompensation and variceal bleeding remain the most common cause of maternal deaths, with reduced rates of bleeding and its complications reported following the introduction of endoscopic procedures during pregnancy. CPH increases the risk of postpartum hemorrhage, whereas variceal bleeding is higher among NCPH.

BACKGROUND: Liver cirrhosis (LC) is largely associated with diabetes mellitus (DM). More than 80% of patients with LC manifest glucose intolerance and about 30% have type 2 DM. A particular and yet unrecognized entity is hepatogenous diabetes (HD), defined as impaired glucose regulation caused by altered liver function following LC. Numerous studies have shown that DM could negatively influence liver-related outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate whether patients with LC and DM are at higher risk for hepatic encephalopathy (HE), variceal hemorrhage (VH), infections and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The impact of DM on liver transplant (LT) outcomes was also addressed.
METHODS: Literature search was performed in PubMed, Ovid, and Elsevier databases. Population-based observational studies reporting liver outcomes in patients with LC were included.
RESULTS: Diabetics are at higher risk for HE, including post-transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt HE. DM also increases the risk of VH and contributes to elevated portal pressure and variceal re-bleeding, while uncontrolled DM is associated with increased risk of bacterial infections. DM also increases the risk of HCC and contributes to adverse LT outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with DM and LC may benefit from close follow-up in order to reduce readmissions and mortality. Due to the heterogeneity of available research, prospective multicenter clinical trials are needed to further validate these findings.

BACKGROUND: Variceal hemorrhage is associated with high mortality and is the cause of death for 20-30% of patients with cirrhosis. Nonselective β blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) are recommended for primary prevention of variceal bleeding in patients with medium to large esophageal varices. Meanwhile, combination of EVL and NSBBs is the recommended approach for the secondary prevention. Carvedilol has greater efficacy than other NSBBs as it decreases intrahepatic resistance. We hypothesized that there was no difference between carvedilol and EVL intervention for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis patients.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of carvedilol compared to EVL for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients.
METHODS: We searched relevant literatures in major journal databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) from March to August 2018. Patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, regardless of aetiology and severity, with or without a history of variceal bleeding, and aged ≥ 18 years old were included in this review. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of carvedilol and that of EVL for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding and mortality in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension were considered, irrespective of publication status, year of publication, and language.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included. In four trials assessing the primary prevention, no significant difference was found on the events of variceal bleeding (RR: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.37-1.49), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.10, 95%CI: 0.76-1.58), and bleeding-related mortality (RR: 1.02, 95%CI: 0.34-3.10) in patients who were treated with carvedilol compared to EVL. In three trials assessing secondary prevention, there was no difference between two interventions for the incidence of rebleeding (RR: 1.10, 95%CI: 0.75-1.61). The fixed-effect model showed that, compared to EVL, carvedilol decreased all-cause mortality by 49% (RR: 0.51, 95%CI: 0.33-0.79), with little or no evidence of heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS: Carvedilol had similar efficacy to EVL in preventing the first variceal bleeding in cirrhosis patients with esophageal varices. It was superior to EVL alone for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in regard to all-cause mortality reduction.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review and compare outcomes between percutaneous sclerotherapy and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) treatments in patients with peristomal variceal bleeding.
METHODS: Ten patients who underwent sclerotherapy (n = 3 patients), TIPS placement (n = 5 patients) or both (n= 2 patients) for peristomal variceal bleeding were retrospectively reviewed. There were 6 women and 4 men, with a mean age of 62.6 years (range: 44-84 years). Data pertaining to the technical aspects of the procedure, demographics, and information regarding the underlying cause of ostomy and portal hypertension were collected. Treatment was considered a primary success if no further hemorrhage occurred.
RESULTS: No differences in primary success were found between TIPS cohort (100%) and sclerotherapy cohort (40%) (P=0.4). Sclerotherapy patients had a poorer nutritional status (mean albumin serum level of 2.04g/dL in the sclerotherapy group and 2.95g/dL in theTIPS group; P=0.04) and worse liver function (mean total bilirubin serum level of 4.9mg/dL in the sclerotherapy group and 1.6mg/dL in the TIPS group; P=0.07).
CONCLUSIONS: While further investigation is needed, TIPS may be more effective than sclerotherapy in treating peristomal variceal bleeding. However, sclerotherapy may serve as an effective bridging mechanism in critically ill patients.