Hepatology International

, Volume 12, Supplement 1, pp 91–101 | Cite as

Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension

Special Issue - Portal Hypertension


Acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage is a dreaded complication of portal hypertension. Its management has evolved rapidly in recent years. Endoscopic therapy is often employed to arrest bleeding varices as well as to prevent early rebleeding. The combination of vasoconstrictor and endoscopic therapy is superior to vasoconstrictor or endoscopic therapy alone for control of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. After control of acute variceal bleeding, combination of banding ligation and beta-blockers is generally recommended to prevent variceal rebleeding. To prevent the catastrophic event of acute variceal bleeding, endoscopic banding ligation is an important tool in the prophylaxis of first bleeding. Endoscopic obturation with cyanoacrylate is usually utilized to arrest acute gastric variceal hemorrhage as well as to prevent rebleeding. It can be concluded that endoscopic therapies play a pivotal role in management of portal hypertensive bleeding.


Esophageal varices Sclerotherapy Banding ligation Gastric varices Endoscopic obturation 


Many etiologies are associated with development of portal hypertension. Collaterals generally develop to decompress the elevated pressure and blood flow. Collaterals that develop and protrude to the lumen of the gastrointestinal tract become so-called varices, most commonly encountered growing around the lower esophagus and cardia. Esophageal and gastric varices can be easily detected by endoscopy. Acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage is one of the most dreaded complications of portal hypertension, with mortality of up to 40% and rebleeding rate of 60% in survivors [1, 2, 3]. Fortunately, the mortality of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage has decreased to 20% in recent years [4]. Other than hemodynamic and clinical parameters, endoscopic findings of variceal sizes and red color signs are important predictive factors for variceal rupture. Hence, preventing first variceal bleeding, treatment of acute variceal bleeding, as well as prevention of variceal rebleeding are all integral parts of the management of complications related to portal hypertension [5]. Endoscopic therapy plays a pivotal role in management of all three aspects of variceal bleeding. This article focuses on the role of endoscopy in management of portal hypertension.

Timing of endoscopy for portal hypertensive bleeding

It is generally agreed that cirrhotic patients suffering from acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage should receive endoscopy to confirm the bleeding sources [5]. Prior to endoscopic therapy, resuscitation is required and vasoconstrictors should be instituted. However, the most appropriate time to perform endoscopic examination remains undetermined. One study showed that patients presenting with stable vital signs and no signs of active bleeding can be managed with vasoconstrictors and receive endoscopic examination during working hours of endoscopists [6]. On the other hand, some studies have shown that patients with portal hypertension presenting with hematemesis should receive emergency endoscopic therapy to achieve a higher hemostatic rate [7, 8]. The latest Baveno Consensus on portal hypertension suggests that endoscopy should be performed within 12 h for cirrhotic patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding [5].

Modalities of endoscopic therapy for esophageal variceal bleeding

Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) has been widely employed to arrest acute variceal bleeding for more than three decades [9, 10]. The volume of sclerosant in each injection and the interval of treatment vary greatly among operators, and no standard EIS method could be established [11]. The advantages of EIS include easy technique and highly effective hemostatic rate. Before the advent of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), EIS was the most widely used endoscopic therapy in management of acute variceal bleeding. The hemostatic rate achieved by emergency EIS ranged between 60 and 100%.

On the other hand, EVL has been employed to treat variceal bleeding since 1986 [12]. Several ligation devices have been developed for clinical use. Currently, multi-ligator is the most commonly used device. Some experts claim that the cylinder attached to the endoscope may obscure detection of the bleeding point when using EVL during active bleeding. Use of an overtube may facilitate endoscope entry into the esophagus and protect airways during massive bleeding or massive vomitus at endoscopy, but may also be associated with esophageal laceration or perforation [13]. EVL technique also varies greatly among endoscopists. It is better to deploy at least one rubber band on each prominent varix. However, deployment of many rubber bands during one EVL session did not prove to be more effective [14]. The optimal interval for EVL has been an issue of controversy [15, 16, 17]. The American Society of Gastroenterology Standards of Practice suggests 1–8-week intervals for primary and secondary prophylaxis [18]. A comparison between EIS and EVL is presented in Table 1. Posttreatment ulcer bleeding may occur in about 20% of patients receiving EIS and 2% of patients receiving EVL. Most of these patients may be treated conservatively, e.g., using vasoconstrictors, proton pump inhibitors, and sucralfate powder. Severe cases may require balloon tamponade, self-expanding metal stent, or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent (TIPSS).
Table 1

Comparison between EIS and EVL







For acute variceal bleeding


Active variceal bleeding

Technically easier

Technically more difficult

Acute hemostasis

Similar efficacy or inferior

Similar efficacy or superior

Very early rebleeding rate



Acute impact on portal pressure


Not increased

For prevention of rebleeding


Treatment interval

Days to weeks

2–4 weeks

Rebleeding rates

More common


Treatment sessions required for

variceal obliteration

More sessions


Rates of variceal obliteration



Variceal recurrence

Less common

More common


More common


 Post treatment ulcers

Less common but deeper

More common but shallower

 Post treatment ulcer bleeding

More common

Less common

Esophageal stricture

More common

Less common

Infectious sequelae

More common

Less common


Similar or worse

Similar or better

Prophylaxis of first bleeding

Not suitable


EIS endoscopic injection sclerotherapy, EVL endoscopic variceal ligation

Injection of tissue adhesive agent Histoacryl, a method widely used to arrest gastric variceal bleeding [19], has also been employed to treat acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage with some success [20]. Use of tissue adhesive in esophageal variceal hemorrhage is not common, possibly due to the high effectiveness of EVL.

Acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage

Comparison between vasoconstrictors and EIS

Emergency EIS has been compared with vasopressin, terlipressin, octreotide, and somatostatin. A meta-analysis of six trials comparing EIS with vasopressin or terlipressin showed a significant advantage of EIS in controlling bleeding. However, the difference between EIS and somatostatin or octreotide in controlling of bleeding was not significant [21]. Of note was that EIS was associated with more complications than vasoconstrictors. Thus, it has been suggested that vasoconstrictors could replace EIS as first-line management of variceal bleeding [21]. Another meta-analysis including 15 studies comparing EIS with vasoconstrictors showed that the efficacy of EIS was a median of 83%. Failure to control bleeding was less frequent with EIS with a difference of 3.4%, and fewer deaths with EIS with a difference of 4.3%. However, EIS was associated with more frequent complications, with a difference of 8.8% [22].

Comparison between balloon tamponade and sclerotherapy

A controlled study to compare the relative efficacy of hemostasis between EIS and balloon tamponade was performed by Paquet et al. in 1985 [23]. That study showed that hemorrhage was definitively controlled in 52% of patients in the balloon tamponade group and in 90% of patients in the EIS group (p < 0.01). The frequency of complications was similar in the two groups. This study proved the superiority of EIS over balloon tamponade in terms of control of hemorrhage and improvement of survival. Nowadays, balloon tamponade is rarely used as first-line therapy for esophageal variceal hemorrhage.

Comparison between EVL and EIS

Many randomized, control studies have compared the efficacy between EIS and EVL in the control of acute bleeding from esophageal varices [24, 25, 26, 27, 28]. A meta-analysis of seven studies showed that EVL compared with EIS reduced the rebleeding rate and mortality rate with fewer incidences of esophageal strictures [29]. Another meta-analysis of 12 studies by Triantos et al. demonstrated that there was a significant difference favoring EVL regarding control of bleeding, but this was an average of 2.6% and there was no difference in mortality [22]. Most studies included very few patients with active bleeding varices at endoscopy and showed similar hemostasis. On the other hand, we performed a study specifically aimed at comparison of EIS and EVL in the arresting of active bleeding varices at endoscopy. Our trial showed that the hemostatic rate for 48 h achieved by EIS was 76% in 34 patients and 97% in 37 patients (Fig. 1) [30]. The efficacy of ligation was similar to sclerotherapy in the control of oozing varices (100 versus 89%, p = 0.23), whereas ligation was superior to sclerotherapy in the control of spurting varices (94 versus 62%, p = 0.01). On the other hand, sustained rise of portal pressure was noted in patients receiving EIS but not in patients receiving EVL [31]. The Baveno Consensus since 2005 has recommended EVL as the first choice of endoscopic treatment in management of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. However, EIS may be used in the acute setting if EVL is technically difficult [32].
Fig. 1

Comparison of EVL and EIS in management of active variceal bleeding (adapted from Ref. [30]). EVL endoscopic variceal ligation, EIS endoscopic injection sclerotherapy; Control of bleeding (p = 0.009), complications (p = 0.007), mortality (p = 0.19)

Comparison between vasoconstrictors and EVL

Since vasoconstrictors have been proven to be a viable substitute for EIS, it is useful to know whether vasoconstrictors can also replace EVL as the therapy of choice for initial control of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Only one study has compared EVL and somatostatin in the control of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. This controlled study included 62 patients in the EVL group and 63 patients in the somatostatin group. Three patients (4.8%) in the ligation group and 20 patients (31.7%) in the somatostatin group encountered treatment failure (p = 0.0001). The results demonstrated that EVL was superior to somatostatin in the control of hemorrhage without enhancing adverse events [33]. No study has compared EVL with other vasoconstrictors alone in management of acute esophageal variceal bleeding. Nowadays, neither vasoconstrictors nor endoscopic therapy alone is advised for management of acute esophageal variceal bleeding.

Comparison between vasoconstrictors plus endoscopic therapy versus endoscopic therapy alone

Banares performed a meta-analysis including 939 patients from eight trials to evaluate the benefits of combination of endoscopic therapy with vasoconstrictors [34]. The results showed that combined treatment improved initial control of bleeding and 5-day hemostasis as compared with endoscopic therapy alone, but without improvement in survival. Severe adverse events were similar in both groups. The reported efficacy of EIS alone with median of 69% in these studies was lowest compared with other studies. Thus, the benefit of combined therapy has been regarded as an overestimation [22].

Comparison between vasoconstrictors plus EVL versus vasoconstrictor alone

The role of endoscopic therapy has been questioned in patients with no active bleeding at endoscopy. A controlled study [35] showed that 48-h hemostasis was achieved in 91% in the terlipressin group and 98% in the combined EVL and terlipressin group (p = 0.20). However, very early rebleeding within 48–120 h occurred in seven patients (15%) in the terlipressin group but not in any patients (0%) in the combined group (p = 0.006). Treatment failure was 24% in the terlipressin group and 2% in the combined group (p = 0.002). This study showed that EVL is still required in patients with inactive variceal bleeding at endoscopy.

Comparison between EVL plus vasoconstrictor and EIS plus vasoconstrictor

Villanueva performed a trial to compare emergency EVL plus somatostatin (89 patients) versus EIS plus somatostatin (90 patients) in patients with acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage [36]. Therapeutic failure occurred in 21 patients treated with sclerotherapy (24%) and in 9 treated with EVL (10%). Failure to control bleeding occurred in 15 versus 4%, respectively (p = 0.02). Serious-side effects occurred in 13% in EIS group and 4% in EVL group (p = 0.04). Six-week survival probability was better with EVL (p = 0.01). This study proved that use of EVL instead of EIS as emergency endoscopic therapy added to somatostatin for treatment of acute variceal bleeding significantly improves efficacy and safety.

Prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding

Comparison between EVL and EIS

Laine performed a meta-analysis of seven studies and showed that EVL is more effective than EIS for reducing the rebleeding rate [29]. The number of endoscopic treatment sessions required to achieve variceal obliteration was lower with ligation than with sclerotherapy. Another meta-analysis including 13 articles performed by de Franchis in 1999 revealed a strong benefit for EVL in decreasing variceal rebleeding (odds ratio 0.46) and similar survival between patients treated with EIS and those with EVL [37]. The mean number of sessions required to achieve variceal obliteration was reduced from 5.4 in patients receiving EIS to 3.6 in patients receiving EVL. This may significantly shorten the duration required to achieve variceal obliteration. Recurrent variceal bleeding reduced from 8–53% in the EIS groups to 2–36% for patients receiving EVL. The high incidence of bacterial infections, esophageal stricture, and ulcer bleeding associated with EIS was significantly reduced with EVL [38]. EVL is currently considered the endoscopic treatment of choice for patients to prevent esophageal variceal rebleeding [5]. The main disadvantage of EVL is possibly higher frequency of recurrent varices [39].

Comparison between EIS and medical therapy

Both beta-blockers and EIS were important and popular modalities for prevention of variceal rebleeding during the 1980s. Studies comparing EIS and beta-blockers were widely performed. A meta-analysis of nine trials comparing beta-blockers with EIS showed a significant reduction of rebleeding in favor of EIS [40]. However, significantly more complications were encountered in patients receiving EIS, while survival was similar between both therapies. On the other hand, Villanueva et al. showed that combination of nadolol and isosorbide mononitrate was superior to EIS in the reduction of variceal rebleeding [41].

Comparison between EVL and drug therapy

Six controlled trials comparing the combination of nadolol and nitrate with EVL in the prevention of variceal rebleeding have been reported [42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47]. Meta-analysis of the first four studies showed similar survival between pharmacologic therapy and EVL [48], suggesting that either medication with beta-blockers plus nitrate or EVL can be used to prevent esophageal variceal rebleeding. Long-term observation by us demonstrated that EVL was definitely superior to combination drug therapy in preventing rebleeding from esophageal varices. However, possibly owing to systemic effects, survival in patients treated with combination drug therapy appeared to be better than those treated with repeated EVL without drug therapy [49].

Comparison between EVL plus EIS and EVL or EIS alone

Combination of EVL and EIS to eradicate esophageal varices has ignited enthusiasm among endoscopists. Paraesophageal varices have been shown to be obliterated by EIS but not by EVL [50]. The combination of EIS and EVL can be synchronous or metachronous. Singh et al. performed a meta-analysis including seven studies assessing the efficacy of combining EVL and EIS [51]. Combination therapy achieved significantly higher variceal obliteration than EVL alone, however the overall rebleeding rate was similar between patients receiving EVL alone and combination therapy, i.e., 22 versus 20%, respectively. Survival was also similar between both methods of treatment. Moreover, combination therapy lengthened the treatment time and was associated with higher incidence of esophageal stricture. Thus, synchronous combination of EVL and EIS has been discarded.

On the other hand, a few trials showed that metachronous combination therapy of EIS and EVL could reduce variceal recurrence or even reduce incidence of variceal rebleeding as compared with treatment with EVL or EIS alone [52, 53]. Thus, metachronous combination therapy of EIS and EVL is favored over their synchronous combination. To reduce variceal recurrence, repeated EVL followed by microwave or argon plasma has also been shown to be a feasible method [54, 55].

Combination of EVL and drug therapy

It is reasonable to combine a local therapy, i.e., EVL, and a systemic therapy, beta-blockers, to reduce esophageal variceal rebleeding. The first study with a combination of nadolol, sucralfate, a mucosal protector, and EVL compared with EVL alone was carried out by us. The results showed that combination therapy was superior to EVL alone in terms of variceal rebleeding rates (12 versus 29%) and variceal recurrence (26 versus 50%) [56]. A similar study by de la Pena also consistently showed that combination of EVL and beta-blockers was superior to EVL alone in reducing variceal rebleeding and prevention of variceal recurrence [57]. A meta-analysis including 1860 patients from 23 studies with the combination of EIS or EVL and beta-blockers was performed [58]. The results found that combination of either EIS or EVL and drug therapy reduced overall rebleeding and variceal rebleeding more than either therapy alone, with similar survival. On the other hand, it is interesting to evaluate whether EVL could enhance the efficacy of beta-blockers plus isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) in the prevention of variceal rebleeding. Current studies showed that addition of EVL to β-blockers and ISMN achieves a nonsignificant decrease of rebleeding with no effect on mortality [59, 60].

Comparison between endoscopic therapy and TIPSS

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPSS) has been widely employed in management of variceal bleeding in the last two decades [61, 62]. Meta-analyses disclosed that variceal rebleeding was significantly reduced by TIPSS (19%) as compared with endoscopic therapy (47%) [63]. However, TIPSS is associated with significantly higher incidence of hepatic encephalopathy, and survival was similar between both therapies. Thus, TIPSS is not favored as first-line therapy for preventing variceal rebleeding but rather as rescue therapy for endoscopic and pharmacological treatment failure [64].

Primary prophylaxis for first bleeding from esophageal varices

It is estimated that esophageal varices may be noted in 50% of cirrhotic patients. Since variceal bleeding may lead to high incidence of mortality and rebleeding, primary prophylaxis of first bleeding from esophageal varices is mandatory in patients with high-risk esophageal varices.

For prevention of first bleeding from esophageal varices, endoscopic examination is required to confirm presence of high-risk esophageal varices. Though other modalities such as capsule endoscopy, computed tomogram scan, as well as Fibroscan have been assessed for their role in detecting esophageal varices [65, 66], endoscopy is still regarded as irreplaceable. Most guidelines recommend endoscopic examinations in patients suspected of cirrhosis. If no varices are noted, then follow-up endoscopic examination at intervals of 2 years is advised. If mild varices without red color signs are noted, it is advised to repeat endoscopic examination at 1-year intervals [5]. For patients with mild varices and red color signs, nonselective beta-blockers are the first option in the absence of contraindications. Among patients with large varices, either nonselective beta-blockers or EVL can be considered. The algorithm to prevent first variceal bleeding is shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2

Algorithm for prevention of first variceal bleeding. RCS red color signs, NSBB nonselective beta-blockers, EVL endoscopic variceal ligation

Comparison between EIS and no treatment

Regarding modalities to prevent first bleeding from esophageal varices, EIS and portacaval shunt operation were widely adopted from 1980 to 1990. In 1991, a study from the USA showed that EIS as compared with sham therapy may be associated with enhanced mortality for unknown reasons and suggested that EIS should not be performed until variceal bleeding. Since then, EIS has rarely been utilized to prevent first variceal bleeding [67].

Comparison between EVL and no treatment

EVL has been compared with no treatment for prophylaxis of first variceal bleeding. Imperiale performed a meta-analysis of five trials comparing EVL with untreated control groups; the relative risks of first variceal bleed, bleed-related mortality, and all-cause mortality were 0.36, 0.20, and 0.55, respectively. These results showed that EVL is definitely superior to no treatment in the reduction of first variceal bleeding and mortality in cirrhotic patients [68]. Currently, it is regarded as unethical to leave high-risk varices untreated.

Comparison between EVL and beta-blockers

Both beta-blockers and banding ligation are widely employed to prevent first variceal bleeding [69, 70, 71, 72]. A meta-analysis showed that, among 283 subjects from four trials comparing EVL with beta-blocker, the relative risk of first variceal bleed was 0.48, but there was no effect on either bleed-related mortality or all-cause mortality. It is thus suggested that prophylactic ligation should be considered for patients with large esophageal varices who cannot tolerate beta-blockers [68]. Khuroo performed another meta-analysis and showed that EVL compared with beta-blockers significantly reduced rates of first gastrointestinal bleed by 31% and first variceal bleed by 43%. All-cause and bleed-related deaths were unaffected. Severe adverse events were significantly less in EVL compared with beta-blockers [73].

On the other hand, Tripathi et al. demonstrated that carvedilol was superior to EVL in the prevention of first variceal bleeding, i.e., 10 versus 23%, with similar survival [74]. It is generally recommended that beta-blockers be used as first-line therapy for high-risk esophageal varices, with EVL being reserved for patients who cannot tolerate or with contraindications to beta-blockers [64].

Comparison between EVL and EIS

Only one Czech study has compared EVL and EIS in the prophylaxis of first bleeding from high-risk varices [75]. Akin to studies on prevention of rebleeding, the number of sessions required for variceal eradication was lower in EVL group. EIS group was associated with lower rate of variceal recurrence and higher incidence of complications. The variceal bleeding rate and survival were similar in the two groups. Since EIS is associated with higher incidence of complications, it is not recommended to prevent first variceal bleeding.

Combination of beta-blockers and banding ligation

Combination of EVL and beta-blockers has been recommended as standard therapy for prevention of variceal rebleeding. However, the role of combination therapy is not yet established in primary prophylaxis of first bleeding. Two controlled studies have compared the combination of EVL and beta-blockers with either EVL or beta-blockers alone in preventing first variceal bleeding [76, 77]. However, no significant benefit was noted in the combination therapy.

Gastric varices

Though the incidence of gastric variceal bleeding is lower than that of esophageal variceal bleeding, rupture of gastric varices usually results in more severe hemorrhage and higher mortality than esophageal varices [78]. Optimal therapy for bleeding gastric varices was not established until recent years.

Comparison between EIS and glue injection for gastric variceal hemorrhage

Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy was the earliest available endoscopic method. Three studies have compared EIS using ethanolamine or absolute alcohol with Histoacryl (glue) in treatment of acute gastric variceal bleeding [79]. The results showed that glue injection was superior to EIS in the control of acute bleeding and prevention of rebleeding. As the rebleeding rate may be as high as 89%, sclerotherapy has been abandoned by most endoscopists [79].

Comparison between EVL and glue injection for gastric variceal hemorrhage

Three controlled trials including 194 patients with acute gastric variceal bleeding have been carried out [80, 81, 82, 83]. Active bleeding control was achieved in 94% of patients in the cyanoacrylate glue injection group, compared with 80% in the EVL group (p = 0.03). The rebleeding rate was comparable in type 2 gastroesophageal varices (GOV2) between the two interventions, but glue injection was superior in reducing rebleeding of type 1 gastroesophageal varices (GOV1, 26 versus 48%) and isolated gastric varices (IGV1, 17 versus 86%). There were no differences in complications or mortality between the two interventions. Complications of glue injection include thrombosis, bacterial infection, ulcer bleeding, and inadvertent clotting of injection needles [84]. Endoscopic obturation with glue injection has gained worldwide popularity except in the USA. GOV1 varices are usually treated as esophageal varices with EVL [84]. However, glue injection was proven to be more effective [85, 86]. Combination of endoscopic therapy and beta-blockers to prevent gastric variceal rebleeding is not proven to be superior to endoscopic therapy alone [87]. Nevertheless, the combination is still favored for patients with concomitant gastric and esophageal varices [84].

Comparison between glue injection and TIPSS

Two cohort and one prospective study have compared cyanoacrylate versus TIPSS in treatment of gastric variceal hemorrhage [88, 89, 90]. Meta-analysis showed that the pooled incidence of variceal rebleeding in the TIPSS group was significantly lower than that in the EIS group. However, the risk of hepatic encephalopathy was significantly increased in the TIPSS group [91]. Thus, glue injection instead of TIPSS is considered as the first choice in patients to prevent gastric variceal rebleeding.

Thrombin injection, using either bovine or human thrombin to convert fibrinogen to fibrin clot, has been reported mostly in European countries [92]. A 5-ml solution containing 5000 units of thrombin can clot a liter of blood within 60 s. The efficacy of thrombin injection in hemostasis ranged from 70 to 100%, and rebleeding rates ranged from 0 to 27%. Associated side-effects were rarely reported. In view of the technical ease, effectiveness, and safety of thrombin injection, it is believed to be promising for treatment of bleeding gastric varices.

Comparison between glue injection and beta-blockers in primary prophylaxis of gastric variceal bleeding

Primary prophylaxis of first bleeding from gastric varices has rarely been investigated. Mishra et al. performed a controlled trial in patients with large gastric varices which had never bled. The actuarial probability of bleeding from gastric varices over median follow-up of 26 months was lower and the survival was higher in the cyanoacrylate group as compared with the no-treatment group. It appeared that glue injection is effective in primary prophylaxis of high-risk gastric variceal bleeding [93]. Since the sample size was very small, more studies are still required.

Ectopic variceal bleeding

Patients with portal hypertensive may develop varices along the gastrointestinal tract other than gastroesophageal varices. Because the incidence of ectopic variceal bleeding is appreciably low as compared with bleeding arising from gastroesophageal varices, no modalities have been well documented to be both effective and safe in the management of ectopic variceal bleeding. Endoscopic therapies including EIS, EVL, argon plasma coagulation, and endoscopic glue obturation have been reported to be effective in treating duodenal, small bowel, colon, and rectal varices [94, 95]. A retrospective analysis from Japan showed that EIS may be associated with lower incidence of rebleeding as compared with EVL in the management of rectal variceal bleeding [96].

Portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG) bleeding

Portal hypertensive gastropathy refers to changes in the mucosa of the stomach in patients with portal hypertension. Portal hypertensive gastropathy may appear as snake skin mosaic pattern, black–brown spots, or even active hemorrhage [5]. Endoscopic therapy of varices may accentuate PHG [97, 98]. Treatment of PHG is aimed at reducing hepatic venous pressure gradients, most often by pharmacologic means, but may require shunt procedures in severe cases. Endoscopic treatment of acute bleeding secondary to PHG is generally ineffective. Endoscopic therapy with argon plasma coagulation (APC) or coagulation therapy may be considered on an individual basis [99].

Hemospray is a proprietary mineral blend powder developed specifically for endoscopic hemostasis. Several case reports have shown successful hemostasis of PHG bleeding by use of Hemospray [100].


Endoscopy is nowadays of paramount importance in assessing the severity of gastroesophageal varices as well as gastropathy for patients with portal hypertension. Endoscopic examination is still required to confirm the presence of varices. A wide armamentarium can be employed to manage variceal bleeding. EVL has currently replaced EIS as endoscopic therapy of choice in the arresting of active variceal bleeding as well as inactive variceal bleeding at endoscopy. Among patients with acute variceal bleeding and endoscopic treatment failure, rescue therapy with balloon tamponade, self-expanding metal stent, or TIPSS may be indicated, depending on available expertise and facility. For prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding, EVL plus beta-blockers is regarded as the first choice. TIPSS should be considered for patients with repeated rebleeding despite endoscopic therapy. To prevent first esophageal variceal bleeding, EVL is a good alternative to beta-blockers.

Regarding treatment of gastric variceal bleeding, glue injection has been proved superior compared with EIS or EVL in arresting acute bleeding as well as preventing rebleeding. Glue injection may also be applied in the prevention of first bleeding from gastric varices.

In summary, endoscopic examinations and endoscopic therapy have played important roles in portal hypertensive bleeding over the last three decades and may continue to do so in the future.


Compliance with Ethical Standards


This study was not funded.

Conflict of Interest

Gin-Ho Lo declares that he has no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.


  1. 1.
    de Franchis R, Primignani M. Natural history of portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis. Clin Liver Dis. 2001;5:645–663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bosch J, Garcia-Pagan JC. Prevention of variceal rebleeding. Lancet. 2003;361:952–954CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lo GH. The role of endoscopy in secondary prophylaxis of esophageal varices. Clin Liver Dis. 2010;14:307–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carbonell N, Pauwels A, Serfaty L, Fourdan O, Levy VG, Poupon R. Improved survival after variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis over the past two decades. Hepatology. 2004;40:652–659CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Franchis R. Updating consensus in portal hypertension: report of the Baveno III Consensus Workshop on definitions, methodology and therapeutic strategies in portal hypertension. J Hepatol. 2000;33:846–852CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheung J, Soo I, Bastiampillai R, Zhu Q, Ma M. Urgent vs. non-urgent endoscopy in stable acute variceal bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:1125–1129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hsu YC, Chung CS, Tseng CH, Lin TL, Liou JM, Wu MS, et al. Delayed endoscopy as a risk factor for in-hospital mortality in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal hemorrhage. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;24:1294–1299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen PH, Chen WC, Hou MC, Liu TT, Chang CJ, Liao WC, et al. Delayed endoscopy increases re-bleeding and mortality in patients with hematemesis and active esophageal variceal bleeding: a cohort study. J Hepatol. 2012;57:1207–1213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Westaby D, Macdougall BRD, Malia W, Theodossi A, William R. A prospective randomized study of two sclerotherapy techniques for oesophageal varices. Hepatology. 1983;3:681–684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sarin SK, Sachdeva GK, Nanda R, Vij JC, Anand BS. Endoscopic sclerotherapy using absolute alcohol. Gut. 1985;26:120–124CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Conn HO. Endoscopic sclerotherapy: an analysis of variants. Hepatology 1983;3:769–771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stiegmann GV, Cambre T, Sun JH. A new endoscopic elastic band ligation device. Gastrointest Endosc. 1986;32:230–123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holderman WH, Etzkorn KP, Patel SA, Harig JM, Watkins JL. Endoscopic findings and overtube-related complications associated with esophageal variceal ligation. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1995;21:91–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramirez FC, Colon VJ, Landan DJ, Grade AJ, Evanich E. The effects of the number of rubber bands placed at each endoscopic session upon variceal outcomes: a prospective, randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1372–1376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lo GH, Lai KH. The optimal interval of endoscopic variceal ligation. Hepatology. 2008;47:1429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang HM, Lo GH, Chen WC, Chan HH, Tsai WL, Yu HC, et al. Randomized controlled trial of monthly versus biweekly endoscopic variceal ligation for the prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;29:1229–1236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sheibani S, Khemichian S, Kim JJ, Hou L, Yan AW, Buxbaum J, et al. Randomized trial of 1-week versus 2-week intervals for endoscopic ligation in the treatment of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding. Hepatology. 2016;64:549–555CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. The role of endoscopy in the management of variceal hemorrhage. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Soehendra N, Nam VC, Grimm H, Kempeneers I. Endoscopic obliteration of large esophagogastric varices with bucrylate. Endoscopy. 1986;18:25–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sung JJY, Yeo W, Suen R, Lee TLYT, Chung SCS, Chan FKL, et al. Injection sclerotherapy for variceal bleeding in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: cyanoacrylate versus sodium tetradecyl sulfate. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;47:235–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    D’Amico G, Pietrosi G, Tarantino I, Pagliaro L. Emergency sclerotherapy versus vasoactive drugs for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis: a Cochrane meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2003;124:1277–1291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Triantos CK, Goulis J, Patch D, Papatheodoridis GV, Leandro G, Samonakis D, et al. An evaluation of emergency sclerotherapy of varices in randomized trials: looking the needle in the eye. Endoscopy. 2006;38:E74–E90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paquet KJ, Feussner H. Endoscopic sclerosis and esophageal balloon tamponade in acute hemorrhage from esophagogastric varices: a prospective controlled randomized trial. Hepatology. 1985;5:580–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stiegmann GV, Goff JS, Michaletz-Onody PA, Korula J, Lieberman D, Saeed ZA, et al. Endoscopic sclerotherapy as compared with endoscopic ligation for bleeding esophageal varices. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:1527–1532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Laine L, El-Newihi HM, Migikovsky B, Solane R, Garcia F. Endoscopic ligation compared with sclerotherapy for the treatment of bleeding esophageal varices. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:1–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lo GH, Lai KH, Cheng JS, Hwu JH, Chang CF, Chen SM, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of sclerotherapy versus ligation in the management of bleeding esophageal varices. Hepatology. 1995;22:466–471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sarin SK, Govil A, Jain AK, Guptan RC, Issar SK, Jain M, et al. Prospective randomized trial of endoscopic sclerotherapy versus variceal band ligation for esophageal varices: influence on gastropathy, gastric varices and variceal recurrence. J Hepatol. 1997;26:826–832CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hou MC, Lin HC, Kuo BI, Chen CH, Lee FY, Lee SD. Comparison of endoscopic variceal injection sclerotherapy and ligation for the treatment of esophageal variceal hemorrhage: a prospective randomized trial. Hepatology. 1995;21:1517–1522PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Laine L, Cook D. Endoscopic ligation compared with sclerotherapy for treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding. A meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 1995;123:280–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lo GH, Lai KH, Cheng JS, Lin CK, Huang JS, Hsu PI, et al. Emergency banding ligation versus sclerotherapy for the control of active bleeding from esophageal varices. Hepatology. 1997;25:1101–1104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Avgerinos A, Armonis A, Stefanidis G, Mathou N, Vlachogiannakos J, Kougioumtzian A, et al. Sustained rise of portal pressure after sclerotherapy, but not band ligation, in acute variceal bleeding in cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2004;39:1623–1630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Laine L, Planas R, Nevens F, Rafael Bañares, David Patch Jaime Bosch. Treatment of the acute bleeding episode. In: de Franchis R. Portal hypertension IV: proceedings of the fourth Baveno International Consensus Workshop. Blackwell Publishing 2006; p 217–242Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chen WC, Lo GH, Tsai WL, Hsu PI, Lin CK, Lai KH. Emergency endoscopic variceal ligation versus somatostatin for acute esophageal variceal bleeding. J Chin Med Assoc. 2006;69:60–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Banares R, Albillos A, Rincon D, Alonso S, Gonzalez M, Ruiz-del-Arbol L, et al. Endoscopic treatment versus endoscopic plus pharmacologic treatment of acute variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis. Hepatology. 2002;35:609–615CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lo GH, Chen WC, Wang HM, Lin CK, Tsai WL, et al. Low-dose terlipressin plus banding ligation vs. low-dose terlipressin alone in the prevention of very early rebleeding of esophageal varices. Gut. 2009;58:1275–1280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Villanueva C, Piqueras M, Aracil C, Gomez C, López-Balaguer JM, Gonzalez B, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing ligation and sclerotherapy as emergency endoscopic treatment added to somatostatin in acute variceal bleeding. J Hepatol. 2006;45:560–567CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    de Franchis R, Primignani M. Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension. Sem Liver Dis. 1999;19:439–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lo GH, Lai KH, Shen MT, Chang CF. A comparison of the incidence of transient bacteremia and infectious sequelae after sclerotherapy and rubber band ligation of bleeding esophageal varices. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;40:675–679PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hou MC, Lin HC, Lee FY, Chang FY, Lee SD. Recurrence of esophageal varices following endoscopic treatment and its impact on rebleeding: comparison of sclerotherapy and ligation. J Hepatol. 2000;32:202–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bernard B, Lebrec D, Mathurin P, Opolon P, Poynard T. Propranolol and sclerotherapy in the prevention of gastrointestinal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis. J Hepatol. 1997;26:312–324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Villanueva C, Balanzo J, Novella MT, Soriano G, Sáinz S, Torras X, et al. Nadolol plus isosorbide mononitrate compared with sclerotherapy for the prevention of variceal rebleeding. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1624–1629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Villanueva C, Minyana J, Ortiz J, Gallego A, Soriano G, Torras X, et al. Endoscopic ligation compared with combined treatment with nadolol and isosorbide mononitrate to prevent recurrent variceal rebleeding. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:647–655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lo GH, Chen WC, Chen MH, Lin CP, Lo CC, Hsu PI, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of endoscopic variceal ligation versus nadolol and isosorbide mononitrate for the prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding. Gastroenterology. 2002;123:728–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Patch D, Sabin CA, Goulis J, Gerunda G, Greenslade L, Merkel C, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of medical therapy versus endoscopic ligation for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2002;123:1013–1019CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Romero G, Kravetz D, Argonz J, Vulcano C, Suarez A, Fassio E, et al. Comparative study between nadolol and 5-isosorbide mononitrate vs. endoscopic band ligation plus sclerotherapy in the prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients: a randomized controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;24:601–611CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sarin SK, Wadhawan M, Gupta R, Shahi H. Evaluation of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) versus propanolol plus isosorbide mononitrate/nadolol (ISMN) in the prevention of variceal rebleeding: comparison of cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients. Dig Dis Sci. 2005;50:1538–1547CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ahmad I, Khan AA, Alam A, Butt AK, Shafqat F, Sarwar S. Propranolol, isosorbide mononitrate and endoscopic band ligation—alone or in varying combinations for the prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding. JCPSP. 2009;19:283–286PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Garcia-Pagan JC, Bosch J. Endoscopic band ligation in the treatment of portal hypertension. NCP Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;2:526–535Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lo GH, Chen WC, Lin CK, Tsai WL, Chan HH, Chen TA, et al. Improved survival in patients receiving medical therapy as compared with banding ligation for the prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding. Hepatology. 2008;48:580–587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lo GH, Lai KH, Cheng JS, Huang RL, Wang SJ, Chiang HT. Prevalence of paraesophageal varices and gastric varices in patients achieving variceal obliteration by banding ligation and by injection sclerotherapy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;49:428–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Singh P, Pooran N, Indaram A, Bank S. Combined ligation and sclerotherapy versus ligation alone for secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:623–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lo GH, Lai KH, Cheng JS, Lin CK, Huang JS, Hsu PI, et al. The additive effect of sclerotherapy to patients receiving repeated endoscopic variceal ligation: a prospective, randomized trial. Hepatology. 1998;28:391–395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Cheng YS, Pan S, Lien GS, Suk FM, Wu MS, Chen JN, et al. Adjuvant sclerotherapy after ligation for the treatment of esophageal varices: a prospective, randomized long-term study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;53:566–571CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nakamura S, Mitsunaga A, Murata Y, Suzuki S, Hayashi N. Endoscopic induction of mucosal fibrosis by argon plasma coagulation (APC) for esophageal varices: a prospective randomized trial of ligation plus APC vs. ligation alone. Endoscopy. 2001;33:210–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cipolletta L, Bianco MA, Rotondano G, Marmo R, Meucci C, Piscopo R. Argon plasma coagulation prevents variceal recurrence after band ligation of esophageal varices: preliminary results of a prospective randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:467–471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lo GH, Lai KH, Cheng JS, Chen MH, Huang HC, Hsu PI, et al. Endoscopic variceal ligation plus nadolol and sucralfate compared with ligation alone for the prevention of variceal rebleeding: a prospective, randomized trial. Hepatology. 2000;32:461–465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    De la Pena J, Brullet E, Sanchez-Hernandez E, Rivero M, Vergara M, Martin-Lorente JL, et al. Variceal ligation plus nadolol compared with ligation for prophylaxis of variceal rebleeding: a multicenter trial. Hepatology. 2005;41:572–578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gonzalez R, Zamora J, Gomez-Camarero J, Molinero LM, Bañares R, Albillos A. Meta-analysis: combination endoscopic and drug therapy to prevent variceal rebleeding in cirrhosis. Ann Intern Med. 2008;15(149):109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lo GH, Chen WC, Chen MH, Tsai WL, Hsu PI, Lin CK, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of banding ligation plus drug therapy vs drug therapy alone in the prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;24:982–987CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Puente A, Hernandez-Gea V, Graupera I, Roque M, Colomo A, Poca M, et al. Drugs plus ligation to prevent rebleeding in cirrhosis: an updated systematic review. Liver Int. 2014;34:823–833CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sanyal AJ, Freedman AM, Luketic VA, Purdum PP, Shiffman ML, Tisnado J, et al. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt compared with endoscopic therapy for the prevention of recurrent variceal hemorrhage: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:849–857CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Jalan R, Forrest EH, Stanley AJ, Redhead DN, Forbes J, Dillon JF, et al. A randomized trial comparing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt with variceal band ligation in the prevention of rebleeding from esophageal varices. Hepatology. 1997;26:1115–1122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Papatheodoridis G, Goulis J, Leandro G, Patch D, Burroughs AK. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt compared with endoscopic treatment for prevention of variceal rebleeding. Heptology. 1999;30:612–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Garcia-Tsao G. Current management of the complications of cirrhosis and portal hypertension: variceal hemorrhage, ascites, and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Gastroenterology. 2001;120:726–748CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    de Franchis R, Eisen GM, Laine L, Fernandez-Urien I, Herrerias JM, Brown RD, et al. Esophageal capsule endoscopy for screening and surveillance of esophageal varices in patients with portal hypertension. Hepatology. 2008;47:1595–1603CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wang HM, Lo GH, Chen WC, Hsu PI, Yu HC, Lin CK, et al. Efficacy of transient elastography in screening for large esophageal varices in patients with suspicious or proven liver cirrhosis. J Dig Dis. 2012;13:430–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Variceal Sclerotherapy Group. Prophylactic sclerotherapy for esophageal varices in men with alcoholic liver disease. A randomized, single-blind, multicenter clinical trial. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:1779–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Imperiale TF, Chalasani N. A meta-analysis of endoscopic variceal ligation for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding. Hepatology. 2001;33:802–807CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sarin SK, Lamba GS, Kumar M, Misra A, Murthy NS. Comparison of endoscopic ligation and propranolol for primary prevention of variceal bleeding. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:988–993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Lo GH, Chen WC, Chen MH, Lin CP, Lo CC, Hsu PI, et al. Endoscopic ligation vs. nadolol in the prevention of first variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59:333–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Schepke M, Kleber G, Niirnberg D, Willert J, Koch L, Wilfried VS, et al. Ligation vs. propranolol for the primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2004;40:65–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Jutabha R, Jensen DM, Martin P, Savides T, Han S-H, Gornbein J. Randomized study comparing banding and propranolol to prevent initial variceal hemorrhage in cirrhotics with high risk esophageal varices. Gastroenterology. 2005;128:870–881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Khuroo MS, Khuroo NS, Farahat KL, Khuroo YS, Sofi AA, Dahab ST. Meta-analysis: endoscopic variceal ligation for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;21:347–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Tripathi D, Ferguson JW, Kochar N, Leithead JA, Therapondos G, Mcavoy N, et al. Randomized controlled trial of carvedilol versus variceal band ligation for the prevention of the first variceal bleeding. Hepatology. 2009;50:825–833CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Svoboda P, Kantorova I, Ochmann J, Kozumplik L, Marsova J. A prospective randomized controlled trial of sclerotherapy vs ligation in the prophylactic treatment of high-risk esophageal varices. Surg Endosc. 1999;13:580–584CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Sarin SK, Wadhawan M, Agarwal SR, Tyagi P, Sharma BC. Endoscopic variceal ligation plus propranolol vs. endoscopic variceal ligation alone in primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:797–804CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Lo GH, Chen WC, Wang HM, Lee CC. A controlled trial of ligation plus nadolol vs. nadolol alone for the prevention of first variceal bleeding. Hepatology. 2010;52:230–237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Sarin SK, Primignani M, Agarwal SR. Gastric varices. In: de Franchis R, editor. Portal hypertension III. In: Proceedings of the third Baveno International Consensus Workshop on definitions, methodology and therapeutic strategies. Oxford: Blackwell, Science 2001; 76–96Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Trudeau W, Prindiville T. Endoscopic injection sclerosis in bleeding gastric varices. Gastrointest Endosc. 1986;32:264–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Lo GH, Lai KH, Cheng JS, Chen MH, Chiang HT. A prospective, randomized trial of butyl cyanoacrylate injection versus band ligation in management of bleeding gastric varices. Hepatology. 2001;33:1060–104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Tan PC, Hou MC, Lin HC, Liu TT, Lee FY, Chang FY, et al. A randomized trial of endoscopic treatment of acute gastric variceal hemorrhage: N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate injection versus band ligation. Hepatology. 2006;43:690–697CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Tantau M, Crisan D, Popa D, Vesa S, Tantau A. Band ligation vs. N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate injection in acute gastric variceal bleeding: a prospective follow-up study. Ann Hepatol. 2013;13:75–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Qiao W, Ren Y, Bai Y, Liu S, Zhang Q, Zhi F. 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:e1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Garcia-Pagan JC, Barrufet M, Cardenas A, Escorsell A. Management of gastric varices. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:919–928CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Lo GH, Lai KH. Should GOV1 be treated as for esophageal varices? Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1014–105 (letter) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Lo GH, Lin CW, Perng DS, Chang CY, Lee CT, Hsu CY, et al. A retrospective comparative study of histoacryl injection and banding ligation in the treatment of acute type 1 gastric variceal hemorrhage. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2013;48:1198–1204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Hung HH, Chang CJ, Hou MC, Liao WC, Chan CC, Huang HC, et al. Efficacy of non-selective β-blockers as adjunct to endoscopic prophylactic treatment for gastric variceal bleeding: a randomized controlled trial. J Hepatol. 2012;56:1025–1032CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Mahadeva S, Bellamy MC, Kessel D, Davies MH, Millson CE. Cost-effectiveness of N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (histoacryl) glue injections versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the management of acute gastric variceal bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:2688–2693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Procaccini NJ, Al-Osaimi AM, Northup P, Argo C, Caldwell SH. Endoscopic cyanoacrylate versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for gastric variceal bleeding: a single-center U.S. analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:881–887CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Lo GH, Liang HL, Chen WC, Chen MH, Lai KH, Hsu PI, et al. A prospective, randomized controlled trial of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt vs. cyanoacrylate injection in the prevention of gastric variceal rebleeding. Endoscopy. 2007;39:679–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Bai M, Qi XS, Yang ZP, Wu KC, Fan DM, Han GH. EVS vs TIPS shunt for gastric variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther. 2014;5:97–104CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    McAvoy NC, Plevris JN, Hayes PC. Human thrombin for the treatment of gastric and ectopic varices. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;7:5912–5917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Mishra SR, Sharma BC, Kumar A, Sarin SK. Primary prophylaxis of gastric variceal bleeding comparing cyanoacrylate injection and beta-blockers: a randomized controlled trial. J Hepatol. 2011;54:1161–1167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Gunnerson AC, Diehl DL, Nguyen VN, Shellenberger MJ, Blansfield J. Endoscopic duodenal variceal ligation: a series of 4 cases and review of the literature. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:900–904CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Sato T, Yamazaki K, Akaike J, Toyota J, Karino Y, Ohmura T. Retrospective analysis of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for rectal varices compared with band ligation. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2010;3:159–163CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Schafer TW, Binmoeller KF. Argon plasma coagulation for the treatment of colonic varices. Endoscopy. 2002;34:661–663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Lo GH, Lai KH, Cheng JS, Hsu PI, Chen TA, Wang EM, et al. The effects of endoscopic variceal ligation and propranolol on portal hypertensive gastropathy: a prospective controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;53:579–584CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Sarin SK, Streenlvas DV, Lahoti D, Saraya A. Factors influencing development of portal hypertensive gastropathy in patients with portal hypertension. Gastroenterology. 1992;102:994–999CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Patwardhan VR, Cardenas A. The management of portal hypertensive gastropathy and gastric antral vascular ectasia in cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;40:354–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Smith LA, Morris AJ, Stanley AJ. The use of hemospray in portal hypertensive bleeding: a case series. J Hepatol. 2014;60:457–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Research, E-Da Hospital, Kaohsiung, School of Medicine for International StudentsI-Shou UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations