Endoscopic variceal obturation and retrograde transvenous obliteration for acute gastric cardiofundal variceal bleeding

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1546433/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Endoscopic variceal obturation and retrograde transvenous obliteration for acute gastric cardiofundal variceal bleeding

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1546433/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background/Aims: We compared the efficacy of endoscopic variceal obturation (EVO) and retrograde transvenous obliteration (RTO) in acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding.

Methods: Patients with acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding treated with EVO or RTO at two academic hospitals were included.

Results: Ninety patients treated with EVO and 86 treated with RTO were analyzed. The mean model for end-stage liver disease score was significantly higher in EVO group than in RTO group (13.5 vs. 11.7, P=0.016). The bleeding control rates were high (97.8% vs. 96.5%), and the treatment-related complication rates were low in both EVO and RTO groups (2.2% vs. 3.5%). During the median follow-up of 18.0 months, gastric variceal (GV) and esophageal variceal rebleeding occurred in 34 (19.3%) and 7 (4.0%) patients, respectively. The all-variceal rebleeding rates were comparable between EVO and RTO groups (32.4% vs. 20.8% at 2-year, P=0.150), while the GV rebleeding rate was significantly higher in EVO group than in RTO group (32.4% vs. 12.8% at 2-year, P=0.003). On propensity score-matched analysis (71 patients in EVO vs. 71 patients in RTO group), both all-variceal and GV rebleeding rates were significantly higher in EVO group than in RTO group (all P <0.05). In Cox regression analysis, EVO (vs. RTO) was the only significant predictor of higher GV rebleeding risk (hazard ratio 3.132, P=0.005). The mortality rates were similar between two groups (P=0.597).

Conclusions: Both EVO and RTO effectively controlled acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding. RTO was superior to EVO in preventing all-variceal and GV rebleeding after treatment, with similar survival outcomes.

Rebleeding

prevention

balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration

vascular plug-assisted retrograde transvenous obliteration

portal hypertension.

Gastric varices (GVs) are enlarged submucosal veins of the stomach that are present in approximately 20% of patients with liver cirrhosis (1). Bleeding from GVs is less frequent than from esophageal varices (EVs), with a bleeding rate of 25% over 2 years (1). However, GVs that bleed are mostly large and have high blood flow, which can result in severe bleeding (1–4). Moreover, rebleeding and mortality rates are also higher in GVs than in EVs (1, 5, 6).

According to their location, gastroesophageal varices (GOV) 2 and isolated GV (IGV) 1 varices are usually classified as cardiofundal varices (7). Treatment of cardiofundal variceal bleeding can be difficult, since cardiofundal varices are larger and have more complicated blood circulation than GOV1s (8–10). Accompanied collateral shunts are other barriers to achieving a complete cure of cardiofundal varices (11).

Current guidelines recommend endoscopic variceal obturation (EVO) as one of the treatment options for acute GV bleeding (7, 12, 13). The rate of hemostasis after EVO has been reported to be as high as 91–100%; however, the rebleeding rate from GVs after EVO remains at 3.6–41.0% (14–18).

Recently, retrograde transvenous obliteration (RTO), including balloon-occluded (BRTO) and vascular plug-assisted RTO (PARTO), have been considered as the treatment options for acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding. High hemostasis rates (> 90%) and low rebleeding rate (0–7.43%) have been reported in patients treated with BRTO in acute GV bleeding (19–21). Further, PARTO showed high technical and clinical success rates and no rebleeding events in patients with GV bleeding (22–24).

However, to date, an optimal treatment modality for acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding has not been confirmed. Accordingly, we compared the efficacy and safety of EVO and RTO for acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

Study population

Patients with acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding who were treated with EVO or RTO between March 2006 and November 2018 at the Korea University Anam Hospital and Yonsei University Severance Hospital were considered eligible (Fig. 1). The exclusion criteria were as follows: (a) age < 18 years, (b) insufficient follow-up period (less than 6 months), (c) previous treatment with EVs or GVs, (d) non-cirrhotic portal hypertension, (e) portal vein thrombosis, (f) advanced malignancy including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and (g) history of organ transplant.

Definition

Liver cirrhosis was diagnosed either clinically or histologically when typical ultrasonographic findings were present and consistent with a low platelet count (< 100,000/µL) or overt complications of liver cirrhosis (25). Acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding was diagnosed if the following were present on esophagastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (26, 27): (a) active blood spurting or oozing from cardiofundal varices; (b) blood clots or white nipples on the surfaces of cardiofundal varices; (c) blood in the stomach without a potential bleeding cause other than cardiofundal varices.

Treatments

When acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding was suspected, vasoactive drugs such as terlipressin or somatostatin were administered, followed by diagnostic EGD within 12 hours. When acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding was detected on EGD, EVO or RTO was performed within 6 hours, depending on the presence of a gastrorenal shunt and the clinician’s decision. Patients who underwent EVO were classified into the EVO group, and those who underwent RTO, including BRTO or PARTO, were classified into the RTO group. Detailed procedures of EVO, BRTO, and PARTO are described in Supplementary Note.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes were all-variceal and GV rebleeding. Rebleeding was defined as recurrent bleeding after an absence of bleeding for at least 5 days following resolution of acute GV bleeding (28). The diagnosis of variceal rebleeding was the same as that for acute variceal bleeding. The secondary outcomes were bleeding control, treatment-related complications, and mortality. Patients were followed up until death, liver transplantation, or loss to follow-up.

Statistical analysis

Demographic and laboratory data are presented as mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables and numbers with percentages for categorical variables. Categorical and quantitative variables of the groups were compared using the chi-square test and Student's t-test, respectively.

To minimize the potential bias according to the different baseline characteristics between the EVO and RTO groups, propensity score matching (PSM) was calculated by fitting a logistic regression model that included the following variables in both the EVO and RTO cohorts: age, sex, diabetes, HCC, type of varices, size of EVs, hemoglobin, platelet count, INR, serum levels of albumin, total bilirubin and ALT, and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score. A 1:1 ratio PSM was performed using the nearest neighbor method.

Variceal rebleeding and mortality rates were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. The data of patients that died, received a liver transplantation, or were lost to follow-up were censored. Independent predictors for variceal rebleeding and mortality were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. All statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 25.0 software (International Business Machines Corp.).

Patient characteristics

Among the 307 eligible patients, a total of 176 patients were finally selected for statistical analyses (90 [51.1%] in the EVO group and 86 [48.9%] in the RTO group). In the RTO group, 45 (52.3%) and 41 (47.7%) patients were treated with BRTO and PARTO, respectively. The baseline characteristics of the study population are shown in Table 1. Ninety-nine (56.3%) patients had GOV2, and 77 (43.7%) patients had IGV1. The mean MELD score was 12.6. Beta-blockers were administered to 52 (29.5%) patients after bleeding control was achieved.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of all patients
	All patients (n = 176)	EVO group (n = 90, 51.1%)	RTO group (n = 86, 48.9%)	P value
Age	60.3 ± 11.7	60.5 ± 11.9	59.5 ± 11.7	0.704
Male, n (%)	125 (71.0)	69 (76.7)	56 (65.1)	0.091
Etiology, n (%)				0.395
Hepatitis B virus	50 (28.4)	22 (24.4)	28 (32.6)
Hepatitis C virus	14 (8.0)	7 (7.8)	7 (8.1)
Alcohol	83 (47.2)	48 (53.3)	35 (40.7)
Other	29 (16.5)	13 (14.4)	16 (18.6)
Diabetes, n (%)	50 (28.4)	24 (26.4)	26 (30.2)	0.298
Hepatocellular carcinoma, n (%)	50 (28.4)	24 (26.7)	26 (30.2)	0.600
Type of varices, n (%)				0.470
GOV2	99 (56.3)	53 (58.9)	46 (53.5)
IGV1	77 (43.7)	37 (41.1)	40 (46.5)
Size of esophageal varices, n (%)				0.244
F0-F1	102 (58.0)	47 (52.2)	55 (64.0)
F2-F3	74 (42.0)	43 (47.8)	31 (36.0)
Hemoglobin, g/dL	9.0 ± 5.3	8.9 ± 2.2	9.1 ± 2.4	0.504
Platelet count, ⋅ 10⁹/L	103.1 ± 52.6	106.0 ± 45.5	100.4 ± 59.7	0.935
INR	1.43 ± 0.32	1.44 ± 0.36	1.41 ± 0.71	0.362
Alanine aminotransferase, IU/L	38.5 ± 49.7	42.1 ± 60.9	35.1 ± 34.5	0.418
Total bilirubin, mg/dL	2.1 ± 3.2	2.3 ± 3.7	1.8 ± 2.5	0.154
Serum albumin, g/dL	2.9 ± 0.2	2.9 ± 0.5	3.0 ± 0.5	0.274
MELD score	12.6 ± 4.7	13.5 ± 4.5	11.7 ± 4.8	0.016
Beta-blockers, n (%)	52 (29.5)	11 (12.2)	41 (47.7)	< 0.001
Variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation or n (%). EVO, endoscopic variceal obturation; RTO, retrograde transvenous obliteration; GOV2, gastroesophageal varices type 2; IGV1, isolated gastric varices type 1; INR, international normalized ratio; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease.

Comparison between the EVO and RTO group

Baseline characteristics were statistically similar between the EVO and RTO groups (all P > 0.05), except for a significantly higher MELD score in the EVO group than in the RTO group (mean 13.5 vs. 11.7, P = 0.016) (Table 1). The proportions of GOV2 (58.9% vs. 53.5%) and IGV1 (41.1% vs. 46.5%) were statistically similar between the EVO and RTO groups (P = 0.470). Seventy patients (77.8%) in EVO group had a gastrorenal shunt feasible for RTO procedure.

The proportion of patients who were treated with beta-blockers after bleeding control was significantly higher in the RTO group than in the EVO group (47.7% vs. 12.2%, P < 0.001). The proportion of patients treated with propranolol and carvedilol was 75.0% and 25.0% in the EVO group and 73.2% and 26.8% in the RTO group, respectively (P = 0.735). The mean doses of both propranolol (48.9 mg vs. 51.7 mg, P = 0.807) and carvedilol (12.5 mg vs. 14.7 mg, P = 0.567) were statistically similar between the two groups.

Treatment outcomes

Bleeding was successfully controlled in 171 patients (97.2%). The bleeding control rate was similar between the two groups (97.8% in the EVO group vs. 96.5% in the RTO group, P = 0.613) (Supplementary Table 1). Technical success was achieved in all patients in the EVO and RTO groups. Among patients in the EVO group, 48 patients achieved obliteration of the GV with one session. The other 42 patients underwent additional endoscopic intervention within 1 week of the initial treatment. The mean number of performed EVO sessions was 1.5 ± 1.0, and the mean volume of cyanoacrylate mixture used in each patient was 4.4 ± 2.7 mL.

Treatment-related complications were investigated. Two patients in the EVO group and one patient in the RTO group had worsening ascites, and two patients in the RTO group developed hepatic encephalopathy. No systemic embolization or thrombus developed in either group.

Change of esophageal varices after the treatment

After the treatment for acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding, worsening of EVs was found in 12 (14.8%) patients in the EVO group and 24 (27.9%) patients in the RTO group (P < 0.001). Among patients with F2-F3 EVs after the treatment for acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding, 25 of 36 (69.4%) in the EVO group and 25 of 32 (78.1%) in the RTO group underwent endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) as a secondary prevention of EV bleeding.

All-variceal rebleeding

During the median follow-up period of 18.0 (interquartile range, 7.0–38.9) months, all-variceal rebleeding occurred in 41 (23.3%) patients (26 in the EVO group and 15 in the RTO group). The most common type of variceal rebleeding was GV bleeding (n = 34), followed by EV bleeding (n = 7). All EV rebleeding developed after RTO, and most cases (6 out of 7) did not receive EVL after RTO.

All-variceal rebleeding rates at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment were 6.1%, 11.1%, 17.9%, and 26.3%, respectively (Supplementary Table 1). The corresponding rates in the EVO and RTO groups were statistically similar (6.1%, 11.2%, 23.4%, and 32.4% vs. 6.1%, 11.1%, 12.9%, and 20.8%, respectively, P = 0.150 by log-rank test) (Fig. 1A). There was no significant difference in all-variceal rebleeding rates between the BRTO and PARTO groups (P = 0.891 by log-rank test). In the Cox regression analysis, no significant predictor of all-variceal rebleeding was found (Table 2).

Table 2

Predictors for variceal rebleeding
Variables	Rating	Univariate analysis for variceal bleeding			Univariate analysis for gastric variceal bleeding
		Hazard ratio	95% CI	P value	Hazard ratio	95% CI	P value
Age	years	0.997	0.969–1.025	0.814	1.000	0.970–1.032	0.992
Sex	0 = women; 1 = men	1.384	0.678–2.825	0.373	1.447	0.654–3.198	0.362
Diabetes	0 = no; 1 = yes	1.019	0.524–1.982	0.955	1.060	0.513–2.192	0.874
Etiology	0 = other; 1 = alcohol	1.195	0.644–2.219	0.573	1.242	0.630–2.450	0.531
Size of esophageal varices	0 = F0, F1; 1 = F2, F3	1.131	0.595–2.149	0.707	1.091	0.536–2.222	0.809
Hemoglobin	g/dL	0.977	0.869–1098	0.695	0.976	0.859–1.109	0.707
Platelet count	⋅10⁹/L	1.003	0.998–1.009	0.261	1.002	0.995–1.008	0.628
INR		0.732	0.233–2.301	0.593	0.944	0.348–2.563	0.910
Alanine aminotransferase	IU/L	1.002	0.995–1.008	0.642	1.002	0.994–1.009	0.679
Total bilirubin	mg/dL	1.017	0.942–1.098	0.662	1.026	0.948–1.110	0.520
Serum albumin	g/dL	1.106	0.590–2.073	0.754	0.808	0.402–1.627	0.551
MELD score		1.025	0.952–1.103	0.515	1.049	0.973–1.131	0.213
Type of varices	0 = GOV2; 1 = IGV1	1.190	0.6041–2.207	0.581	1.008	0.511–1.990	0.981
Type of treatment	0 = RTO; 1 = EVO	1.557	0.816–2.970	0.179	3.132	1.408–6.970	0.005
Beta-blocker	0 = no; 1 = yes	0.879	0.430–1.798	0.724	0.994	0.463–2.136	0.988
Post EVL	0 = no; 1 = yes	0.652	0.324–1.310	0.229	0.760	0.360–1.606	0.473
IGV1, isolated gastric varices type 1; GOV2, gastroesophageal varices type 2; INR, international normalized ratio; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; EVO, endoscopic variceal obturation; RTO, retrograde transvenous obliteration; EVL, endoscopic variceal ligation

We additionally evaluated whether this result was reproducible after PSM, and the clinical characteristics of patients balanced by PSM (71 patients in EVO group vs. 71 patients in RTO group) are presented in Supplementary Table 2. On PSM analysis, all-variceal rebleeding rate was significantly higher in the EVO group than in the RTO group (6.0%, 12.1%, 26.4%, and 37.3% vs. 4.5%, 8.3%, 10.5%, and 20.0%, respectively, P = 0.032 by log-rank test) (Fig. 1B, Supplementary Table 3).

GV rebleeding

GV rebleeding was analyzed separately. GV rebleeding rates at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment were 4.9%, 8.3%, 15.2%, and 22.5%, respectively (Supplementary Table 1). The corresponding rates in the EVO group were significantly higher than those in the RTO group (6.1%, 11.2%, 23.4%, and 32.4% vs. 3.7%, 5.4%, 7.2%, and 12.8%, respectively, P = 0.003 by log-rank test) (Fig. 2A). No significant difference in GV rebleeding rate was observed between the BRTO and PARTO groups (P = 0.838 by log-rank test). In the Cox regression analysis, EVO treatment (vs. RTO) was the only significant predictor of higher risk of GV rebleeding (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.132, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.408–6.970, P = 0.005) (Table 2).

On PSM analysis, GV rebleeding rate was significantly higher in the EVO group than in the RTO group (6.0%, 12.1%, 26.4%, and 37.3% vs. 1.6%, 3.6%, 5.8%, and 12.5%, respectively, P < 0.001 by log-rank test) (Fig. 2B, Supplementary Table 3)

Mortality

During the follow-up period, 40 patients died (21 in the EVO group and 19 in the RTO group). The causes of death were variceal bleeding (27.5%), infection (30.0%), or liver failure (42.5%). Six patients received liver transplantation (three patients in the EVO group and three patients in the RTO group). The cumulative transplantation-free survival rates at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment were 87.5%, 84.8%, 82.2%, and 79.1%, respectively (Supplementary Table 1). No significant difference in transplantation-free survival rates was observed between the EVO group (86.7%, 83.9%, 80.4%, and 78.4%) and the RTO group (88.4%, 85.8%, 84.1%, and 79.9%, P = 0.597 by log-rank test) (Fig. 3A). In the Cox regression analysis, higher MELD score was the only independent predictor for higher risk of mortality (HR = 1.089, 95% CI 1.030–1.151, P = 0.002), whereas EVO (vs. RTO) was not (P = 0.598) (Table 3).

Table 3

Predictors for mortality
Variables	Rating	Univariate analysis
		Hazard ratio	95% CI	P value
Age	Years	1.005	0.979–1.031	0.721
Sex	0 = women; 1 = men	1.418	0.702–2.865	0.330
Diabetes	0 = no; 1 = yes	1.039	0.559–1.932	0.904
Etiology	0 = other; 1 = alcohol	1.750	0.959–3.195	0.068
Hemoglobin	g/dL	1.003	0.896–1.124	0.955
Platelet count	⋅10⁹/L	0.998	0.992–1.005	0.613
INR		1.268	0.860–1.871	0.231
Alanine aminotransferase	IU/L	1.001	0.995–1.007	0.748
Total bilirubin	mg/dL	1.050	0.992–1.110	0.090
Serum albumin	g/dL	0.674	0.363–1.252	0.212
MELD score		1.089	1.030–1.151	0.002
Type of varices	0 = GOV2; 1 = IGV1	1.696	0.932–3.085	0.084
Type of treatment	0 = RTO; 1 = EVO	1.174	0.648–2.127	0.598
Beta-blocker	0 = no; 1 = yes	1.381	0.741–2.574	0.309
Post EVL	0 = no; 1 = yes	1.570	0.859–2.866	0.142
IGV1, isolated gastric varices type 1; GOV2, gastroesophageal varices type 2; INR, international normalized ratio; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; EVO, endoscopic variceal obturation; RTO, retrograde transvenous obliteration, EVL, endoscopic variceal ligation

On PSM analysis, no significant difference in transplantation-free survival rates was observed between the EVO group (86.7%, 83.9%, 80.4%, and 78.4%) and the RTO group (88.4%, 85.8%, 84.1%, and 79.9%, P = 0.119 by log-rank test) (Fig. 3B, Supplementary Table 3)

Currently, an optimal treatment for acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding has not been confirmed. In this study, we directly compared EVO with RTO for acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis and found that all-variceal rebleeding rates at 2 years were statistically similar between the two groups (P = 0.150). However, the GV rebleeding rate at 2 years was significantly higher in the EVO group than in the RTO group (P = 0.003), and EVO (vs. RTO) was the only predictor of higher risk of GV rebleeding. On PSM analysis, both all-variceal and GV rebleeding rates were significantly higher in the EVO group than in the RTO group (all P < 0.05). Finally, we found that both EVO and RTO were effective for bleeding control (> 96.5%) and had low complication rates (< 3.5%). No difference was observed in the mortality between the two groups.

This study has several important clinical implications. In the present study, 1- and 2-year all-variceal rebleeding rates were statistically similar between the two groups (11.2% and 32.4% in the EVO group vs. 11.1% and 20.8% in the RTO group, P = 0.150. However, when patients were analyzed for GV rebleeding, the EVO group had significantly higher 1- and 2-year GV rebleeding rates than those in the RTO group (11.2% and 32.4% vs. 5.4% and 12.8%, P = 0.003). In addition, EVO was the only predictor of higher GV rebleeding risk (HR = 3.132, P = 0.005), while it was not associated with all-variceal bleeding in the cox-regression analysis.

The difference between all-variceal and GV rebleeding rates could be explained by the high EV rebleeding rate after RTO. Rebleeding from EVs developed in seven patients treated with RTO; 6 out of 7 did not receive EVL after RTO. In the present study, 14.8% of patients in the EVO group and 27.9% of patients in the RTO group developed worsening of EVs after bleeding control (P < 0.001). A recent randomized controlled study reported an EV worsening rate of 30% and 43.5% in the EVO and BRTO groups, respectively (29), and similar results have been frequently reported in previous studies (9, 30–33). Because RTO completely obliterates the portosystemic shunts that supply GVs, worsening of portal hypertension and its complications have been widely observed (34, 35). Thus, screening endoscopy and appropriate prophylaxis with EVL could decrease EV rebleeding after RTO (29).

To minimize the potential bias according to the differences in baseline characteristics between the EVO and RTO groups, particulary in MELD scores, PSM analysis was performed. On PSM analysis, both 1- and 2-year all-variceal and GV rebleeding rates were significantly higher in EVO group than in RTO group (12.1% and 37.3% vs. 8.3% and 20.0%, respectively, P = 0.032; 12.1% and 37.3% vs. 3.6% and 12.5%, respectively, P < 0.001). All these results suggest that RTO is superior to EVO in preventing all-variceal and GV rebleeding after treatment.

To our knowledge, three studies directly compared EVO and BRTO in terms of GV bleeding, and all studies demonstrated the superiority of BRTO over EVO in preventing variceal rebleeding (27, 29, 36). A retrospective study of cardiofundal variceal bleeding found lower rates of rebleeding following BRTO compared to EVO; however, 16/71 patients who underwent BRTO had simultaneous transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts, which could improve portal hypertension and further decrease GV rebleeding (36). Recently, a randomized controlled study compared EVO with BRTO for secondary prophylaxis of cardiofundal GV bleeding (29). However, the number of patients was small (32 patients in EVO group vs. 32 patients in BRTO group). Additionally, 67.2% of patients were transferred patients who had recovered from a previous GV bleeding within 4 weeks. A prospective study also found a higher variceal rebleeding rate for EVO than for BRTO (71.4% vs. 15.4%); however, BRTO was performed only in patients without active bleeding (27).

The rates of recurrence and rebleeding of GVs after successful RTO are low, possibly because the injected sclerosing agent completely destroys the venous endothelium. (30, 31). The higher rebleeding rate in patients treated with EVO may be related to incomplete impaction of cyanoacrylate, leading to less or delayed obturation of GVs and their feeding vessels. Additionally, the results of EVO vary according to the clinician’s experience. Therefore, clinicians should seek the best option for each patient based on the patient’s general condition and access to appropriate medical resources and expertise in clinical practice.

In the present study, bleeding control rates of both treatments were sufficient (97.8% in the EVO group and 96.5% in RTO group). In addition, low prevalence of treatment-related complications (three patients had worsened ascites and two patients developed encephalopathy) was observed, supporting the safety of both modalities in patients with acute GV bleeding.

The one of most common causes of death after acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding was variceal rebleeding (27.5%), emphasizing the need for proper prevention of variceal rebleeding after bleeding control is achieved. There was no significant difference in transplantation-free survival between the EVO and RTO groups (86.7% vs. 88.4% at 6 months; 83.9% vs. 85.8% at 12 months), and a higher MELD score was the only predictor of increased mortality, consistent with the results of previous studies (27, 29).

The major limitation of our study is its retrospective design, which could have resulted in selection bias. Therefore, we conducted robust PSM analysis with large number of variables to minimize potential bias. In addition, due to the small number of patients who received beta-blockers, whether adding beta-blockers can reduce rebleeding from GVs has not been elucidated by the current results. Finally, this study included both BRTO and PARTO, which are different treatment modalities that use different sclerosing agents. Only one patient developed variceal rebleeding after PARTO. This result suggests that PARTO could further improve the treatment outcome of GV bleeding. Further randomized controlled studies with larger numbers of patients are needed to confirm the optimal treatment strategy for patients with acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding.

In conclusion, our study shows that both RTO and EVO are effective and safe methods, however, RTO is more effective than EVO in preventing all-variceal and GV rebleeding, with similar survival outcomes. The worsening of EVs after BRTO should be screened and managed appropriately. EVO could be another effective option for acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding, especially in a clinical setting that lacks resources or expertise for RTO.

GVs

gastric varices

EVs

esophageal varices

GOV

gastroesophageal varices

IGV

isolated gastric varices

EVO

endoscopic variceal obturation

RTO

retrograde transvenous obliteration

BRTO

balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration

PARTO

vascular plug-assisted retrograde transvenous obliteration

HCC

hepatocellular carcinoma

EGD

esophagastroduodenoscopy

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol conformed with the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the human ethics committee of each hospital (Institutional Review Board of Korea University College of Medicine, Institutional Review Board of Yonsei University College of Medicine). The requirement for informed consent was waived due to the retrospective design of the study by the Institutional Review Board of Korea University College of Medicine, Institutional Review Board of Yonsei University College of Medicine.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

Seung Up Kim served as an advisory committee member, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Bayer, and Eisai. He is a speaker for Gilead Sciences, GSK, Bayer, Eisai, Abbive, EchoSens, MSD, and Bristol–Myers Squibb. He also received a research grant from Abbive, Bristol–Myers Squibb. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding

None

Authors’ contributions

Conception and design: S.U. Kim and Y.S. Seo; Development of methodology: S.U. Kim and Y.S. Seo; Acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data: H.A. Lee, J. Kwak, S.B. Cho, Y. Lee, Y.K. Jung, J.H. Kim, H. An, H.J. Yim, Y.T. Jeen, J.E. Yeon, and K.S. Byun; Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: H.A. Lee, J. Kwak, S.U. Kim and Y.S. Seo; Administrative, technical, or material support: S.U. Kim and Y.S. Seo; Study supervision: S.U. Kim and Y.S. Seo.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.co.kr) for English language editing.

Sarin SK, Lahoti D, Saxena SP, et al. Prevalence, classification and natural history of gastric varices: a long-term follow-up study in 568 portal hypertension patients. Hepatology 1992;16:1343–1349.
Ryan BM, Stockbrugger RW, Ryan JM. A pathophysiologic, gastroenterologic, and radiologic approach to the management of gastric varices. Gastroenterology 2004;126:1175–1189.
Thakeb F, Salem SA, Abdallah M, et al. Endoscopic diagnosis of gastric varices. Endoscopy 1994;26:287–291.
Lesmana CRA, Raharjo M, Gani RA. Managing liver cirrhotic complications: Overview of esophageal and gastric varices. Clin Mol Hepatol 2020;26:444–460.
de Franchis R, Primignani M. Natural history of portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis. Clin Liver Dis 2001;5:645–663.
Sarin SK. Long-term follow-up of gastric variceal sclerotherapy: an eleven-year experience. Gastrointest Endosc 1997;46:8–14.
KASL clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis: Varices, hepatic encephalopathy, and related complications. Clin Mol Hepatol 2020;26:83–127.
Watanabe K, Kimura K, Matsutani S, et al. Portal hemodynamics in patients with gastric varices. A study in 230 patients with esophageal and/or gastric varices using portal vein catheterization. Gastroenterology 1988;95:434–440.
Saad WE. Vascular anatomy and the morphologic and hemodynamic classifications of gastric varices and spontaneous portosystemic shunts relevant to the BRTO procedure. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2013;16:60–100.
Lee HA, Goh HG, Seo YS, et al. Evaluation of Treatment Response after Endoscopic Variceal Obturation with Abdominal Computed Tomography. Gut Liver 2020;14:117–124.
Maruyama H, Okugawa H, Yoshizumi H, et al. Hemodynamic features of gastrorenal shunt: a Doppler study in cirrhotic patients with gastric fundal varices. Acad Radiol 2008;15:1148–1154.
Garcia-Tsao G, Abraldes JG, Berzigotti A, et al. Portal hypertensive bleeding in cirrhosis: Risk stratification, diagnosis, and management: 2016 practice guidance by the American Association for the study of liver diseases. Hepatology 2017;65:310–335.
EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with decompensated cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2018;69:406–460.
Park SJ, Seo YS, Lee HA, et al. Cyanoacrylate injection versus band ligation for bleeding from cardiac varices along the lesser curvature of the stomach. Clin Mol Hepatol 2016;22:487–494.
Qiao W, Ren Y, Bai Y, et al. Cyanoacrylate Injection Versus Band Ligation in the Endoscopic Management of Acute Gastric Variceal Bleeding: Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Studies Based on the PRISMA Statement. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e1725.
Caldwell SH, Hespenheide EE, Greenwald BD, et al. Enbucrilate for gastric varices: extended experience in 92 patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007;26:49–59.
Hou MC, Lin HC, Lee HS, et al. A randomized trial of endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for acute gastric variceal bleeding: 0.5 mL versus 1.0 mL. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:668–675.
Marques P, Maluf-Filho F, Kumar A, et al. Long-term outcomes of acute gastric variceal bleeding in 48 patients following treatment with cyanoacrylate. Dig Dis Sci 2008;53:544–550.
Choi YH, Yoon CJ, Park JH, et al. Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration for gastric variceal bleeding: its feasibility compared with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Korean J Radiol 2003;4:109–116.
Sabri SS, Abi-Jaoudeh N, Swee W, et al. Short-term rebleeding rates for isolated gastric varices managed by transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2014;25:355–361.
Wang YB, Zhang JY, Gong JP, et al. Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for treatment of gastric varices due to portal hypertension: A meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;31:727–733.
Kim T, Yang H, Lee CK, et al. Vascular Plug Assisted Retrograde Transvenous Obliteration (PARTO) for Gastric Varix Bleeding Patients in the Emergent Clinical Setting. Yonsei Med J 2016;57:973–979.
Gwon DI, Ko GY, Kwon YB, et al. Plug-Assisted Retrograde Transvenous Obliteration for the Treatment of Gastric Varices: The Role of Intra-Procedural Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. Korean J Radiol 2018;19:223–229.
Chang MY, Kim MD, Kim T, et al. Plug-Assisted Retrograde Transvenous Obliteration for the Treatment of Gastric Variceal Hemorrhage. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:230–238.
Seo YS, Shah VH. Pathophysiology of portal hypertension and its clinical links. J Clin Exp Hepatol 2011;1:87–93.
Seo YS. Prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices. Clin Mol Hepatol 2018;24:20–42.
Hong CH, Kim HJ, Park JH, et al. Treatment of patients with gastric variceal hemorrhage: endoscopic N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate injection versus balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;24:372–378.
de Franchis R. Revising consensus in portal hypertension: report of the Baveno V consensus workshop on methodology of diagnosis and therapy in portal hypertension. J Hepatol 2010;53:762–768.
Luo X, Xiang T, Wu J, et al. Endoscopic Cyanoacrylate Injection vs BRTO for Prevention of Gastric Variceal Bleeding: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Hepatology 2021.
Garcia-Pagán JC, Barrufet M, Cardenas A, et al. Management of gastric varices. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;12:919–928.e911; quiz e951-912.
Lee EW, Shahrouki P, Alanis L, et al. Management Options for Gastric Variceal Hemorrhage. JAMA Surg 2019;154:540–548.
Imai Y, Nakazawa M, Ando S, et al. Long-term outcome of 154 patients receiving balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration for gastric fundal varices. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;31:1844–1850.
Jang SY, Kim GH, Park SY, et al. Clinical outcomes of balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration for the treatment of gastric variceal hemorrhage in Korean patients with liver cirrhosis: a retrospective multicenter study. Clin Mol Hepatol 2012;18:368–374.
Miyamoto Y, Oho K, Kumamoto M, et al. Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration improves liver function in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003;18:934–942.
Uehara H, Akahoshi T, Tomikawa M, et al. Prediction of improved liver function after balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration: relation to hepatic vein pressure gradient. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;27:137–141.
Stein DJ, Salinas C, Sabri S, et al. Balloon Retrograde Transvenous Obliteration Versus Endoscopic Cyanoacrylate in Bleeding Gastric Varices: Comparison of Rebleeding and Mortality with Extended Follow-up. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2019;30:187–194.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Major revision
13 Jun, 2022
Reviews received at journal
04 Jun, 2022
Reviews received at journal
09 May, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
04 May, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
04 May, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
04 May, 2022
Editor invited by journal
25 Apr, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
25 Apr, 2022
First submitted to journal
11 Apr, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Endoscopic variceal obturation and retrograde transvenous obliteration for acute gastric cardiofundal variceal bleeding

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials And Methods

Study population

Definition

Treatments

Outcomes

Statistical analysis

Results

Patient characteristics

Comparison between the EVO and RTO group

Treatment outcomes

Change of esophageal varices after the treatment

All-variceal rebleeding

GV rebleeding

Mortality

Discussion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1