Endoscopic Cyanoacrylate Injection in the Management of Gastric Varices: Long-Term Safety and Efficacy

Abstract

Introduction

Despite endoscopic ultrasound-based endotherapy and radiologic intervention, endoscopic cyanoacrylate (E-CYA) injection still remain as commonly performed treatment modality for bleeding gastric varices (GVs) in real world. We analyzed the long-term safety and efficacy of E-CYA in bleeding GVs.

Patients and Methods

In this retrospective analysis, patients who underwent E-CYA for GVs over the past 10 years were analyzed. The technical success, hemostasis rate, rebleeding rate, mortality rate, and procedure-related complications were analyzed. The predictive factors for a rebleed in terms of Child–Pugh status, the type, form, and size of GVs were computed.

Results

Of the 113, 96 (84.9%) met the inclusion criteria. The median follow-up was 30 (12–49) months. The mean age was 48.1 ± 6.1 years with most being male (83.3%, n = 80). The majority of them had cirrhosis (85.4%, n = 82). The technical success to achieve primary hemostasis was 98.9%. The median volume of glue to achieve hemostasis for each session was 2 (2–4) mL. At 1 month, 12 patients had a clinically significant rebleed (12.5%) and 6 (6.3%) had a rebleed at 6 months. At 1 and 6 months, 68.75% did not require further glue injection. The disease-related mortality was 10.41%. There was no procedure-related mortality.

Conclusion

E-CYA injection shows excellent efficacy and long-term safety with low rebleeding rates and negligible procedure-related complications.

Keywords

gastric varices - glue injection - safety and efficacy

Introduction

Gastric varices (GVs) develop in around 15 to 20% of patients with portal hypertension.[1] The bleeding of GVs is independent of hepatic venous portal vein gradient and carries a short-term mortality risk of 45% and rebleeding risk at 5 years as high as 44%.[1] [2] Currently, available treatment options include endoscopic modalities like variceal banding, endoscopic cyanoacrylate (E-CYA) injection, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided coil and glue (EUS-CG), and radiological techniques like transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS), and balloon retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO).[3]

E-CYA has emerged as an effective treatment with a hemostasis rate of more than 90%.[4] However, this procedure has its limitations. These include the inability to assess the true size of the GVs based on the endoscopic bulge, limited visualization during active bleeding, and para-variceal injection leading to tissue necrosis and perforation.[5] EUS-guided therapy involves placing one or more coils into the GVs for obliteration. This can be done with or without CYA injection. While EUS-guided therapies for GVs are emerging, these therapies require significant expertise, are expensive, lack long-term safety data, and are limited only to tertiary care centers. E-CYA has high short-term rebleed rates that require significant reintervention as compared with EUS-CG.[5] However, no long-term efficacy is available for EUS-CG. On the contrary, E-CYA requires considerably less expertise and carries few complications with experience.[6] In addition, specific training and modification in cyanoacrylate injection techniques like lesser or no dilution of glue has been shown to reduce these complications leading to faster glue polymerization, which does not require confirmation of obliteration by EUS.[7] Hence, this study was done to explore the long-term efficacy and safety of E-CYA for the treatment of GVs.

Materials and Methods

In this retrospective analysis, all patients with GVs who underwent E-CYA injection in the department of gastroenterology from January 2016 to March 2023 were included.

Inclusion Criteria

• Patients above 18 years of age

• Patients who underwent E-CYA for GVs irrespective of the etiology for the cause of portal hypertension

Exclusion Criteria

• Patients with a history of BRTO, TIPS, and shunt surgeries

• GVs not requiring E-CYA

• Patients with incomplete data

The demographic details, etiology of portal hypertension causing GVs, size, location, and form of GV, sign of recent stigmata, amount of glue required, rebleed, and number of reinterventions were entered into a preformatted data sheet.

Definitions

• (1) GVs classification: GVs were classified according to Sarin et al.[1] GVs were classified into gastroesophageal (GOV) and isolated GV (IGV). GOV was subclassified into GOV-1 when the GV was continuous with the esophageal varices (EV) and extended along the lesser curve of the stomach, and GOV-2, where the GV extended from the EV toward the gastric fundus. IGV was classified as IGV-1 wherein isolated GV occurred at the fundus, and IGV-2, which were ectopic varices located in the antrum, corpus, and around the pylorus. The form of the GVs was classified according to Hashizume et al. It was classified into three types: tortuous (F1), nodular (F2), and tumorous (F3).[8]

• (2) Technical success: Injection of cyanoacrylate during endoscopy and hardening of the GV on palpation with standard biopsy forceps.

• (3) Rebleed: Clinically significant rebleed was defined as the occurrence of clinical features of overt gastrointestinal bleeding (hematemesis or melena) in a patient who had undergone glue injection anytime in the past or a drop of hemoglobin of more than 1 g/dL along with recent stigmata of bleed over the GV on repeat endoscopy. Early rebleed was considered as bleeding from GVs during the first hospital admission. Any bleed on a subsequent follow-up was considered a delayed rebleed.

• (4) Obliteration of GV: Successful obliteration was defined endoscopically by probing the GV with a tip needle sheath. Complete obliteration was confirmed by a hard consistency of the injected GV.

• (5) Failure: Failure was defined as the inability to control the bleeding despite E-CYA injection or failure to localize the bleeding GVs due to poor visualization.

Endoscopy

Procedures were performed in the interventional endoscopy unit of the hospital. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was done by three consultant interventional gastroenterologists with a minimum experience of 5 years of E-CYA injections. All patients were started on octreotide infusion as per institutional protocol. All the patients received prophylactic intravenous ceftriaxone 30 minutes before the procedure. All endoscopists performed the procedure with the intention of obliterating GVs. If the initial hemostasis failed, TIPS/BRTO was offered to the patients as rescue therapy. Bleeding from GVs is defined as a varix having any of the following features:

• (1) Active bleeding from the varix.

• (2) Recent stigmata of bleed: Visible clot or ulcer present over the varix.

Technique

EGD was done using the Olympus-190 series with an injection needle flushed with distilled water. After selecting the GV, the base of the GV was punctured using a 21G needle and undiluted n-butyl 2 cyanoacrylate (Histoacryl glue [n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate], B. Braun Medical Inc., Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, United States) was injected in aliquots of 0.5 to 1 mL. The amount of n-butyl 2 cyanoacrylate depended on the size of the varices, but usually not more than 5 mL of glue was injected in a single varix in one setting. Following injection, the catheter was immediately flushed with 1 to 2 mL of distilled water to clear the glue from the catheter into the varix. The needle was then retracted, followed by flushing of the needle with distilled water to keep it patent.

All patients underwent a second endoscopy after 24 hours. Complete obliteration was confirmed by a hard consistency of the injected varix on probing with standard biopsy forceps. The soft varices were deemed patent and additional aliquots of E-CYA were administered to achieve complete obliteration of all patent GVs. Octreotide infusion was continued for a minimum of 3 days and all patients received 5 days of intravenous ceftriaxone. All patients in our study were prescribed nonselective β-blockers following endotherapy as part of standard secondary prophylaxis for gastric variceal bleeding. Propranolol was titrated to achieve a target heart rate of 55 to 60 beats per minute, while carvedilol dosing was adjusted to maintain a mean arterial pressure of above 65 mm Hg.

Follow-Up

Patients underwent repeat endoscopy at 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year postprocedure. If a patient experienced rebleeding from GVs at any time between scheduled follow-up visits, an additional E-CYA injection was administered. In cases where patent varices were detected during follow-up endoscopy, a repeat E-CYA injection was performed to achieve obliteration of the GVs.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome was to evaluate the primary hemostasis, rebleeding during index admission or at follow-up, mortality, and procedure-related complications. Primary hemostasis was defined as the complete cessation of bleeding by the end of the procedure. Rebleeding was identified by a drop in hemoglobin of more than 2 g/dL accompanied by clinical signs of bleeding. All complications related to E-CYA were reviewed, including embolic events and infections. The secondary outcome was a rebleeding rate based on the etiology of portal hypertension examined in terms of the relationship to the Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) status, the type, form, and size of GVs.

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (IBM Corp. Released 2019, IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States). Patients with missing data were excluded. Data normality was assessed with the Shapiro–Wilk test. Categorical variables were evaluated with chi-square or K-Fisher's exact test (if expected count < 5). The Kaplan–Meier method was applied to estimate the time to rebleeding-free survival following successful variceal obliteration. Statistical significance was determined at 5% level of significance.

Results

Demographics

Of the 113 patients who presented with gastric variceal bleeding, 96 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A flowchart depicting the study design is given in [Fig. 1]. The majority was male (83.3%).

Fig. 1 Flowchart depicting the study design.

The mean age was 48.17 ± 6.07 years. Portal hypertension was attributed to cirrhosis in 82 patients (85.4%), while 14 patients (14.6%) had extrahepatic portal vein obstruction (EHPVO). Among the cirrhotic patients, 28 (34.1%) were classified as CTP class A, 40 (48.8%) as Child–Pugh class B, and 14 (17.1%) as Child–Pugh class C. The most common type of GVs was GOV-2, present in 41 patients (42.7%), followed by GOV-1 in 28 patients (29.2%). The majority of varices were classified as F2 in 51 patients (53.1%), followed by F3 in 45 patients (45.8%) ([Table 1]).

Table 1 Demographic data, etiology of portal hypertension, classification of cirrhosis (CTP), types and forms of gastric varices, and treatment interventions in the study population

Variable	Frequency (%)
Sex
Male	80 (83.3)
Female	16 (16.7)
Age (mean ± SD)	48.17 ± 6.07
Etiology of portal hypertension
Cirrhosis	82 (85.4)
EHPVO	14 (14.6)
CTP class
A	28 (29.2)
B	40 (41.7)
C	14 (14.6)
Concomitant esophageal varices	90 (93.75)
Portal hypertensive gastropathy
Mild	91 (94.8)
Severe	5 (5.2)
Endoscopic variceal ligation done for esophageal varices	61 (63.5)
Sarin's class
GOV-1	27 (28.1)
GOV-2	41 (42.7)
IGV-1	23 (24)
IGV-2	5 (5.2)
Form of varix
F1	1 (1)
F2	51 (53.1)
F3	44 (45.8)
Size of varix more than 1 cm	81 (84.4)
Glue aliquot injected per session (mL) (IQR)	3 (2–4)
Number of patients who underwent TIPS	1 (1.04)

Abbreviations: CTP, Child-Turcotte-Pugh; EHPVO, extrahepatic portal vein obstruction; GOV, gastroesophageal varices; IGV, isolated gastric varices; IQR, interquartile range; SD, standard deviation; TIPS, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.

Rebleed and Mortality

The median follow-up period was 30.5 (12–49) months. Technical success, defined as primary hemostasis achieved during the index episode of bleeding, was 98.9%. One patient experienced a failed E-CYA injection due to a high number of GVs and massive bleeding at the time of the procedure, which hindered adequate visualization. This patient, who had alcohol-related cirrhosis, was the only case of intraprocedure mortality. During the first hospital stay two patients had a rebleed. Both these patients were managed successfully with a repeat E-CYA injection.

At follow-up evaluations, 62 of the 96 patients (64.58%) did not require further glue injections. At the 1-month follow-up, four patients required additional aliquots of E-CYA injections due to the presence of patent GVs, as confirmed by probing with biopsy forceps. Clinically significant rebleeding occurred in 10 patients (10.4%) within the first month, while 6 patients (6.3%) experienced rebleeding within 6 months, and 2 patients (2.1%) had rebleeding after 1 year. Additionally, two patients had rebleed after 1 year (2.1%). Rebleed of all but one patient was managed successfully with repeat E-CYA injection. One patient underwent TIPS due to recurrent bleed electively. Furthermore, 10 patients (10.41%) experienced disease-related mortality during the follow-up period. Of these 10 patients, 5 patients died due to sepsis secondary to spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) and 2 patients due to sepsis other than SBP. The other three patients died due to liver failure. There was no procedure-related mortality. A flowchart depicting rebleed and treatment outcomes is given in [Fig. 2]. The median time to recurrence of GVs was 11 months.

Fig. 2 Rebleed and treatment outcomes in patients with gastric varices (GVs).

A Cox proportional hazard model was used to predict the recurrence of GVs. The recurrence of GVs was dependent on the CTP score and size of the varix of more than 5 mm. It was independent of location, size, and form of varix (p > 0.005) ([Table 2]). A 1-year recurrence of bleeding was plotted as a Kaplan–Meier curve with groups of EHPVO and cirrhosis ([Fig. 3A]) and CTP class ([Fig. 3B]). The difference was assessed by a log-rank test. There were no complications related to glue therapy in these patients.

Table 2 Comparison of rebleeding with the status of cirrhosis and varices

Patients	Rebleeding		p-Value
	Absent (%)	Present (%)
CTP score
A	23 (82.14)	5 (17.85)	0.005
B	25 (62.5)	15 (37.5)
C	2 (14.28)	12 (85.71)
Sarin class
GOV-1	17 (62.96)	10 (37.03)	0.379
GOV-2	26 (63.41)	15 (36.58)
IGV-1	18 (78.26)	5 (21.73)
IGV-2	3 (60)	2 (40)
Form of the GVs
F1	1 (100)	0 (0)	0.794
F2	35 (68.62)	16 (31.81)
F3	30 (68.18)	14 (31.81)
Size of the varix
Less than 1 cm	11 (73.33)	4 (26.66)	< 0.005
More than 1 cm	65 (80.24)	16 (19.75)

Abbreviations: CTP, Child-Turcotte-Pugh; GOV, gastroesophageal varices; GV, gastric varices; IGV, isolated gastric varices.

Note: p < 0.005 was considered significant.

Fig. 3 (A and B) Kaplan–Meier graph of gastric variceal rebleeding on follow-up: Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) A vs. B/C patients (p = 0.005). Kaplan–Meier graph of patients with extrahepatic portal vein obstruction (EHPVO) vs. cirrhosis free of bleeding (p = 0.094).

Discussion

Currently, the recommended first-line treatment for acute gastric variceal bleeding is E-CYA injection. This n-butyl 2-cyanoacrylate once in contact with blood solidifies within a few seconds essentially plugging the varix. A glue cast extravasation is seen after 2 to 4 weeks.[9] In our 10-year retrospective study, primary hemostasis was achieved in 98.9% of the patients. E-CYA injection has been reported to have a high primary hemostasis rate of 88 to 100%.[10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

The rebleeding rate after primary hemostasis in our study was 20.83% over a median follow-up of 30.5 months. This is similar to the reports published in the literature.[9] [10] [15] In our study, five patients rebled from recurrence of GVs among CTP A patients. This was significantly lower than that of CTP B/C patients. This is similar to two other cohort studies that reported rebleeding rates of 29 to 35% after initial hemostasis rates of over 95%.[16] [17] However, few studies did not show significant differences in rebleeding rates among cirrhotic patients with CTP grades.[16]

In the present study, we observed no complications associated with the E-CYA injection procedure. A large study from China noted several intraprocedural complications. Needle adhesion to the varix occurred in 1.4% and catheter blockage occurred during the injection process in 2.7%. The overall complication rate varies between 1 and 10%.[18] [19] [20] Other complications include portal vein thrombosis, pulmonary thromboembolism, transient fever, and gastric ulcers.[20] These complications are likely related to procedural factors—such as injection technique, volume of glue employed, and rate of injection—rather than the intrinsic properties of n-butyl 2-cyanoacrylate. By adhering to the appropriate injection protocols, including immediate catheter flushing, utilizing the minimum volume necessary for effective hemostasis, and administering the glue in small, intermittent aliquots, the incidence of these complications can be significantly reduced.[21]

Interventional radiological procedures for the treatment of GVs include TIPS and BRTO.[2] [22] [23] [24] Both these procedures have demonstrated efficacy in controlling bleeding. However, these procedures are relatively invasive and require specialized expertise, which is not always readily available, particularly in acute settings. The TIPS procedure involves the creation of a portosystemic shunt between the portal vein and hepatic vein to reduce portal pressure, but it carries the risk of complications, such as increased hepatic encephalopathy. Due to its invasive nature and the need for specialized expertise, TIPS is generally considered a second-line therapy for gastric variceal bleeding, typically reserved for cases where endoscopic treatment has failed.[9] In our study, only one patient required TIPS for rebleeding during follow-up, and the procedure was successful. Utilization of TIPS at our center has been limited, which may have influenced patient selection. A randomized trial compared TIPS with E-CYA injection for gastric variceal bleeding. E-CYA injection demonstrated superior variceal obliteration; however, it was associated with a higher rate of rebleeding.[25] E-CYA injections are straightforward, effective, and can be performed bedside in intensive care unit settings. Additionally, the criteria for patient selection regarding TIPS/BRTO are influenced by CTP and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores, resulting in more stringent eligibility requirements compared with those for cyanoacrylate injection.

In this study, more than 65% of patients did not require further instances of E-CYA injection. This result is similar to other studies. One of the challenges during follow-up is that not all GVs are visible during standard endoscopy. Deeper varices are often detected through imaging techniques such as computed tomography (CT) or EUS.[15] [26] In the absence of good randomized controlled trials, optimal approach for bleeding GVs remains unaddressed.

In recent years, EUS-guided coil injection combined with cyanoacrylate or thrombin has emerged as a promising alternative for treating patients with a history of gastric variceal hemorrhage. Randomized trials have indicated that this approach is more effective and associated with minimal complications.[27] However, implementing EUS-guided combination therapy in cases of acute gastric variceal bleeding, especially with active spurting or oozing, may present challenges. The need to switch endoscopic devices could introduce delays in endotherapy, potentially leading to adverse outcomes. Additionally, this technique is associated with higher costs and necessitates a level of expertise that may not readily be available in all centers limiting its widespread applicability.

This study has certain limitations. It is a single-center, retrospective study with a limited sample size. The retrospective design may have introduced variability in follow-up adherence. Routine imaging was not obtained preprocedure or postprocedure. CT imaging plays a valuable adjunct role in the assessment of bleeding GVs by identifying their size, location, and feeding vessels, which can guide treatment decisions such as cyanoacrylate injection, TIPS, or BRTO. It also helps detect spontaneous portosystemic shunts and posttreatment complications. CT scans may delay urgent endoscopic intervention, potentially wasting critical time in unstable patients. Cost and accessibility further restrict its use in emergency settings. While CT was not routinely performed in this study, it remains a useful adjunct in selected cases for optimizing management strategies. The presence of ascites and concurrent hepatic encephalopathy were heterogeneous to assess. However, this study demonstrates the efficacy of E-CYA injection for managing bleeding GVs. The long follow-up of patients provided a detailed efficacy of E-CYA injections and the natural history and recurrence of GVs.

Conclusion

E-CYA injection is an effective and safe procedure in bleeding GVs. The overall serious short-term and long-term adverse events of E-CYA injections are rare. Even though newer modalities like EUS-guided endotherapy has shown excellent results, their long-term efficacy has not been well established. Our findings reinforce the role of E-CYA as a primary treatment modality, while the potential benefits of EUS-guided therapy warrant further investigation in future studies.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate

Taken from institutional ethical committee.

Consent for Publication

Sought from the patient.

Availability of Supporting Data

Available from G.B. upon reasonable request.

Authors' Contributions

A.K. and S.N.: Preparing the primary draft of the manuscript. P.K., A.S., and B.M.: Data collection. G.P.C., G.B., and S.S.: Review of the manuscript. S.R.: Statistical analysis.

• References

• 1 Sarin SK, Lahoti D, Saxena SP, Murthy NS, Makwana UK. Prevalence, classification and natural history of gastric varices: a long-term follow-up study in 568 portal hypertension patients. Hepatology 1992; 16 (06) 1343-1349
• 2 Kim T, Shijo H, Kokawa H. et al. Risk factors for hemorrhage from gastric fundal varices. Hepatology 1997; 25 (02) 307-312
• 3 Henry Z, Patel K, Patton H, Saad W. AGA clinical practice update on management of bleeding gastric varices: expert review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 19 (06) 1098-1107.e1
• 4 Seewald S, Ang TL, Imazu H. et al. A standardized injection technique and regimen ensures success and safety of N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate injection for the treatment of gastric fundal varices (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68 (03) 447-454
• 5 Samanta J, Nabi Z, Facciorusso A. et al. EUS-guided coil and glue injection versus endoscopic glue injection for gastric varices: international multicentre propensity-matched analysis. Liver Int 2023; 43 (08) 1783-1792
• 6 Cheng LF, Wang ZQ, Li CZ, Lin W, Yeo AET, Jin B. Low incidence of complications from endoscopic gastric variceal obturation with butyl cyanoacrylate. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8 (09) 760-766
• 7 Desai PN, Patel CN, Kabrawala MV. et al. Use of cyanoacrylate glue in gastric variceal bleed: a modified technique without using lipiodol. VideoGIE 2021; 6 (04) 155-158
• 8 Hashizume M, Kitano S, Yamaga H, Koyanagi N, Sugimachi K. Endoscopic classification of gastric varices. Gastrointest Endosc 1990; 36 (03) 276-280
• 9 Rajoriya N, Forrest EH, Gray J. et al. Long-term follow-up of endoscopic Histoacryl glue injection for the management of gastric variceal bleeding. QJM 2011; 104 (01) 41-47
• 10 Kang EJ, Jeong SW, Jang JY. et al. Long-term result of endoscopic histoacryl (N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate) injection for treatment of gastric varices. World J Gastroenterol 2011; 17 (11) 1494-1500
• 11 Choudhuri G, Chetri K, Bhat G. et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of N-butylcyanoacrylate in endoscopic treatment of gastric varices. Trop Gastroenterol 2010; 31 (03) 155-164
• 12 Marques P, Maluf-Filho F, Kumar A, Matuguma SE, Sakai P, Ishioka S. Long-term outcomes of acute gastric variceal bleeding in 48 patients following treatment with cyanoacrylate. Dig Dis Sci 2008; 53 (02) 544-550
• 13 Huang YH, Yeh HZ, Chen GH. et al. Endoscopic treatment of bleeding gastric varices by N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (Histoacryl) injection: long-term efficacy and safety. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52 (02) 160-167
• 14 D'Imperio N, Piemontese A, Baroncini D. et al. Evaluation of undiluted N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate in the endoscopic treatment of upper gastrointestinal tract varices. Endoscopy 1996; 28 (02) 239-243
• 15 Mosli MH, Aljudaibi B, Almadi M, Marotta P. The safety and efficacy of gastric fundal variceal obliteration using N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate; the experience of a single Canadian tertiary care centre. Saudi J Gastroenterol Off J Saudi Gastroenterol Assoc 2013; 19 (04)
• 16 Akahoshi T, Hashizume M, Shimabukuro R. et al. Long-term results of endoscopic Histoacryl injection sclerotherapy for gastric variceal bleeding: a 10-year experience. Surgery 2002; 131 (1, Suppl): S176-S181
• 17 Joo HS, Jang JY, Eun SH. et al. Long-term results of endoscopic histoacryl (N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate) injection for treatment of gastric varices–a 10-year experience [in Korean]. Korean J Gastroenterol 2007; 49 (05) 320-326
• 18 Guo YW, Miao HB, Wen ZF, Xuan JY, Zhou HX. Procedure-related complications in gastric variceal obturation with tissue glue. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23 (43) 7746-7755
• 19 Butt N, Haleem F, Khan MA, Abbasi A. Efficacy and safety of N-butyl 2 cyanoacrylate injection for treatment of gastric varices: a five year experience from a tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Pak J Med Sci 2022; 38 (05) 1360-1365
• 20 Iqbal Janjua F, Ahmad M, Javed S. et al. Endoscopic therapy of gastric varices: safety and efficacy of N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate injection. Cureus 2023; 15 (11) e49539
• 21 Goral V, Yılmaz N. Current approaches to the treatment of gastric varices: glue, coil application, TIPS, and BRTO. Medicina (Kaunas) 2019; 55 (07) 335
• 22 Albillos A, Ruiz del Arbol L. “Salvage” transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: gastric fundal compared with esophageal variceal bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50 (02) 294-295
• 23 Matsumoto A, Hamamoto N, Nomura T. et al. Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration of high risk gastric fundal varices. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94 (03) 643-649
• 24 Stanley AJ, Jalan R, Ireland HM, Redhead DN, Bouchier IA, Hayes PC. A comparison between gastric and oesophageal variceal haemorrhage treated with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPSS). Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1997; 11 (01) 171-176
• 25 Lo GH, Liang HL, Chen WC. et al. A prospective, randomized controlled trial of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus cyanoacrylate injection in the prevention of gastric variceal rebleeding. Endoscopy 2007; 39 (08) 679-685
• 26 Fujii-Lau LL, Law R, Wong Kee Song LM, Gostout CJ, Kamath PS, Levy MJ. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided coil injection therapy of esophagogastric and ectopic varices. Surg Endosc 2016; 30 (04) 1396-1404
• 27 Jamwal KD, Padhan RK, Sharma A, Sharma MK. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided coiling and glue is safe and superior to endoscopic glue injection in gastric varices with severe liver disease: a retrospective case control study. Clin Endosc 2023; 56 (01) 65-74

Publication History

Article published online:
17 March 2025