Search

Bacterial infection may adversely affect the hemostasis of patients with gastroesophageal variceal bleeding (GEVB). Antibiotic prophylaxis can prevent bacterial infection in such patients, but its role in preventing rebleeding is unclear. Over a 25-month period, patients with acute GEVB but without evidence of bacterial infection were randomized to receive prophylactic antibiotics (ofloxacin 200 mg i.v. q12h for 2 days followed by oral ofloxacin 200 mg q12h for 5 days) or receive antibiotics only when infection became evident (on-demand group). Endoscopic therapy for the GEVB was performed immediately after infection work-up and randomization. Fifty-nine patients in the prophylactic group and 61 patients in the on-demand group were analyzed. Clinical and endoscopic characteristics of the gastroesophageal varices, time to endoscopic treatment, and period of follow-up were not different between the two groups. Antibiotic prophylaxis decreased infections (2/59 vs. 16/61; P <.002). The actuarial probability of rebleeding was higher in patients without prophylactic antibiotics (P =.0029). The difference of rebleeding was mostly due to early rebleeding within 7 days (4/12 vs. 21/27, P =.0221). The relative hazard of rebleeding within 7 days was 5.078 (95% CI: 1.854-13.908, P <.0001). The multivariate Cox regression indicated bacterial infection (relative hazard: 3.85, 95% CI: 1.85-13.90) and association with hepatocellular carcinoma (relative hazard: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.30-4.63) as independent factors predictive of rebleeding. Blood transfusion for rebleeding was also reduced in the prophylactic group (1.40 +/- 0.89 vs. 2.81 +/- 2.29 units, P <.05). There was no difference in survival between the two groups. In conclusion, antibiotic prophylaxis can prevent infection and rebleeding as well as decrease the amount of blood transfused for patients with acute GEVB following endoscopic treatment.

Background: Endoscopic variceal ligation is widely accepted as the optimum endoscopic treatment for esophageal variceal hemorrhage. However, the rebleeding course and long-term outcome of patients with esophageal variceal hemorrhage after ligation have been poorly defined. Therefore, we conducted a long-term follow-up study to delineate the outcome of ligation and compare it with that after sclerotherapy., Methods: One hundred and eighty-five liver cirrhotic patients with endoscopically proven esophageal variceal hemorrhage were randomized to undergo endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy or ligation. These patients received regular follow-up and detailed clinical assessment., Results: Two patients developed hepatoma within 6 months of entry in each group and were excluded. Another six patients in the sclerotherapy group and seven patients in the ligation group were excluded because of poor compliance or lost to follow-up. Therefore, 84 patients in each group were analyzed. In this long-term follow-up (55.3 +/- 12.5 months) the rebleeding rate for ligation was lower than that for sclerotherapy, regardless of whether the rebleeding was analyzed by patient number or Kaplan-Meier analysis. With regard to the rebleeding risk of various periods, the sclerotherapy risk was higher than that of ligation within 4 weeks of the initial endoscopic treatment or before variceal eradication. Multifactorial analysis showed hematemesis, poor hepatic function, and sclerotherapy were the risk factors determining rebleeding. The annual hepatocellular carcinoma incidence was 4.9%. There was no difference in survival between sclerotherapy and ligation. Multifactorial analysis showed that poor hepatic function was the only factor determining survival., Conclusions: The rebleeding risk was higher in sclerotherapy than in ligation before variceal eradication, especially within 4 weeks of the initial endoscopic treatment. Long-term survival was dependent on hepatic reserve regardless of the treatment method.

Background/aims: The risk factors for esophageal variceal rebleeding are little known. Variceal pressure is one of the major determinants of variceal rupture, but the relationship between variceal pressure and variceal rebleeding during maintenance sclerotherapy has not been determined. This study was undertaken to evaluate the relationship between variceal pressure/gradient change and variceal rebleeding during maintenance sclerotherapy., Methods: Patients with liver cirrhosis and recent esophageal variceal hemorrhage underwent consecutive variceal pressure measurements by direct puncture of the varices before each elective sclerotherapy., Results: In 46 patients, the initial variceal pressure was no different regardless of age, sex, underlying etiology or hepatic reserve. Variceal pressure was higher in large varices, varices with more severe red wale markings, and varices with slower reduction in size during maintenance sclerotherapy. A larger volume of sclerosant was required to eradicate large varices, varices with more severe red wale markings, and varices with slower reduction in size during maintenance sclerotherapy. There was a positive correlation between initial variceal pressure and total amount of sclerosant (r=0.485, p=0.001). Initial variceal pressure was not related to rebleeding. Variceal pressure increased more in patients with rebleeding from varices per se (n=7) than in those without rebleeding (n= 24). There was no difference in pressure change between patients without rebleeding (n=24) and those with rebleeding from variceal ulcers (n=7)., Conclusions: Large varices, severe red color signs and slow reduction in variceal size were associated with higher initial variceal pressure, and more sclerosant was required to eradicate the varices. An increase in variceal pressure during maintenance sclerotherapy indicates a higher risk of variceal rebleeding, but not of variceal ulcer rebleeding.

Objective: Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy and variceal ligation are two popular endoscopic methods used to treat esophageal variceal hemorrhage. These two methods have not been compared with regard to esophageal dysfunction after treatment. This is a prospective investigation of esophageal dysmotility after endoscopic injection sclerotherapy and variceal ligation., Methods: Sequential changes of esophageal motility after endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (n = 25) and variceal ligation (n = 25) were investigated in 50 cirrhotic patients with recent variceal bleeding. Another 22 cirrhotics without esophageal varices were included as controls. Radionuclide esophageal transit tests were performed before initial endoscopic treatment, and 1 and 3 months after variceal eradication., Results: The baseline esophageal transit time was longer in both the sclerotherapy (n = 25, 7.8 +/- 1.4 s) and ligation groups (n = 25, 8.2 +/- 1.8 s) than in controls (n = 22, 6.7 +/- 0.7 s, p < 0.005). The transit time was longer in patients with large varices than in those with small varices (8.3 +/- 1.7 vs. 7.2 +/- 0.7 s, p < 0.05). In the sclerotherapy group, the transit time was prolonged 1 month after variceal eradication, compared with its pretreatment state (n = 20, 7.6 +/- 1.5 vs. 10.0 +/- 2.2 s, p < 0.0001) but was shortened at 3 months compared with 1 month after variceal eradication (n = 12, 10.7 +/- 1.5 vs. 8.6 +/- 2.2 s, p < 0.05). Multiple regression analysis showed that the number of treatment sessions required to eradicate varices was the only significant factor associated with prolonged transit time (p < 0.05). In the ligation group, the transit time changed little at 1 month or 3 months after variceal eradication., Conclusions: Impairment of esophageal motility can be significant with endoscopic injection sclerotherapy but is reversible. However, endoscopic variceal ligation exerts no significant impact on esophageal motility.

Objective: Differentiation of esophageal variceal hemorrhage from other sources of the GI tract is often difficult. This is a prospective investigation of the significance of the white nipple sign in patients with recent esophageal variceal hemorrhage., Methods: One hundred sixty-six patients with recent variceal hemorrhage were prospectively studied with respect to presence or absence of the white nipple sign and other stigmata of hemorrhage and compared with 100 patients with known varices but without a clinical history of bleeding., Results: The white nipple sign correlated positively with severity of bleeding (patients required more blood transfusion), hematemesis, and signs of shock. Patients with the white nipple sign also tended to undergo emergency endoscopy and have active bleeding at the time of endoscopy. There was no correlation between rebleeding rate after endoscopic therapy and presence of the white nipple sign. Appearance of the white nipple sign was closely related to the timing of endoscopy (p < 0.0001). The sensitivity and specificity of the white nipple sign in the diagnosis of esophageal variceal hemorrhage were 21 and 100%, respectively, compared with 100 and 54% for the red color sign. Furthermore, the sensitivity of the white nipple sign increased with shorter times between bleeding and endoscopy., Conclusions: In patients with upper GI bleeding, the white nipple sign suggests that the varices bled recently and that the bleeding was severe. However, it has no predictive value for rebleeding after endoscopic therapy. Earlier endoscopy (i.e., within 24 h of bleeding) is suggested to improve the diagnostic rate of esophageal variceal hemorrhage.

Background: Seasonal variation of peptic ulcer and peptic ulcer bleeding has been reported in many western countries. To investigate the seasonal variation of peptic ulcer (PU) and esophageal variceal (EV) bleeding in Taiwan, this retrospective study was conducted., Methods: Seven hundred and forty-six cases of gastric ulcer (GU) bleeding, 777 cases of duodenal ulcer (DU) bleeding and 264 cases of EV bleeding were recruited from January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1992. Patients were sent to the Medical Emergency Room (MER) for hematemesis and/or melena. Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopic examinations were completed within 24 hours for all patients., Results: Significant seasonal variation was found in the incidence of PU and EV bleeding. PU bleeding was most often seen in March and EV bleeding was most often seen in February., Conclusions: The possible mechanism for the cyclic change of PU and EV bleeding is unclear, but clearly more manpower is needed during the months of February and March for better management of the increasing number of cases of PU and EV bleeding.

To determine the effect of endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy or ligation on portal hypertensive gastropathy, 90 cirrhotic patients with esophageal variceal bleeding were randomized to receive sclerotherapy (n = 44) or ligation (n = 46). Follow-up endoscopic observations of the gastric mucosa were recorded at 3-month intervals after variceal eradication. Clinical characteristics in both groups were similar. Probability for a change in the severity of portal hypertensive gastropathy was not related to method of eradication. Most cases of portal hypertensive gastropathy that changed in severity returned to baseline status with time, but the return was faster after ligation than after sclerotherapy. According to the results of multivariate analyses, sclerosant volume was the only factor associated with a significant difference between the group with static gastropathy (n = 15) and that with dynamic change in gastropathy (n = 23) after sclerotherapy. No relevant factors were found in the patients receiving ligation. We conclude that changes in the severity of portal hypertensive gastropathy after endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy or ligation are reversible. Most cases of gastropathy return to baseline status sooner or later.

To determine the efficacy of endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy (EVS) and ligation (EVL) in the management of esophageal variceal bleeding, 134 cirrhotic patients were randomized to receive either treatment. The clinical and endoscopic characteristics were similar in both groups. Active bleeding was controlled with ligation (20 of 20) as efficiently as with sclerotherapy (14 of 16). Elective sclerotherapy consumed less time than ligation (7.9 +/- 1.8 minutes vs. 11.5 +/- 2.7 minutes, P < .001), but there was no difference between emergent sclerotherapy (14.5 +/- 5.8 minutes) and ligation (14.9 +/- 4.1 minutes). Ligation reduced one grade of variceal size more quickly than sclerotherapy (1.1 +/- 0.4 vs. 2.0 +/- 1.7 session, P < .001). The rebleeding rate was lower with ligation (13 of 67 vs. 28 of 67, P < .01). Esophageal ulcer was the most common source of rebleeding. Recurrence of varices appears more probable with ligation (P = .079). The complication rate was higher with sclerotherapy (15 of 67 vs. 3 of 67, P < .01), with esophageal stricture being the most common cause. Survival rate was the same in both groups even after stratifying patients into good and poor hepatic reserve groups. Hepatic failure was the major cause of death, followed by exsanguination. In summary, EVL was superior to EVS regarding rebleeding and complications but not in other aspects such as time consumption in elective treatment and recurrence of varices. Substantial results for long-term follow-up are required before conclusion of the treatment of choice.