Endoscopic Band Ligation Group Research Articles

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of endoscopic band ligation in the treatment of bleeding from mild to moderate gastric varices type 1.

According to practice guidelines, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and endoscopic tissue adhesive injection (TAI) are recommended for treating bleeding from esophagogastric varices. However, EBL and TAI are known to cause serious complications, such as hemorrhage from dislodged ligature rings caused by EBL and hemorrhage from operation-related ulcers resulting from TAI. However, the optimal therapy for mild to moderate type 1 gastric variceal hemorrhage (GOV1) has not been determined. Therefore, the aim of this study was to discover an individualized treatment for mild to moderate GOV1. To compare the efficacy, safety and costs of EBL and TAI for the treatment of mild and moderate GOV1. A clinical analysis of the data retrieved from patients with mild or moderate GOV1 gastric varices who were treated under endoscopy was also conducted. Patients were allocated to an EBL group or an endoscopic TAI group. The differences in the incidence of varicose relief, operative time, operation success rate, mortality rate within 6 wk, rebleeding rate, 6-wk operation-related ulcer healing rate, complication rate and average operation cost were compared between the two groups of patients. The total effective rate of the two treatments was similar, but the efficacy of EBL (66.7%) was markedly better than that of TAI (39.2%) (P < 0.05). The operation success rate in both groups was 100%, and the 6-wk mortality rate in both groups was 0%. The average operative time (26 min) in the EBL group was significantly shorter than that in the TAI group (46 min) (P < 0.01). The rate of delayed postoperative rebleeding in the EBL group was significantly lower than that in the TAI group (11.8% vs 45.1%) (P < 0.01). At 6 wk after the operation, the healing rate of operation-related ulcers in the EBL group was 80.4%, which was significantly greater than that in the TAI group (35.3%) (P < 0.01). The incidence of postoperative complications in the two groups was similar. The average cost and other related economic factors were greater for the EBL than for the TAI (P < 0.01). For mild to moderate GOV1, patients with EBL had a greater one-time varix eradication rate, a greater 6-wk operation-related ulcer healing rate, a lower delayed rebleeding rate and a lower cost than patients with TAI.

Endoscopic band ligation versus hot snare resection for hyperplastic gastric polyps in cirrhotic patients.

Managing patients with liver cirrhosis and gastric hyperplastic polyps (GHPs) is challenging. Despite being the standard technique for resection of GHPs, hot snare polypectomy (HSP) is risky in the setting of coagulation disorders associated with liver cirrhosis. The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic band ligation (EBL), compared to HSP in resecting GHPs in cirrhotic patients. One hundred consecutive adults with liver cirrhosis and sessile or pedunculated GHPs were enrolled from December 2018 to December 2020. Cases were non-blindly randomized (1 : 1) to two groups to have GHPs managed by either EBL (group I) or HSP (group II). Data of demographic, clinical, and pathological factors, hospitalization expenses and outcomes of both treatment maneuvers were collected and statistically analyzed. Upper endoscopy was repeated for all patients at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment for recurrence detection. Between the two procedures, the mean operational time was significantly shorter in the EBL than the HSP group (15.1 ±3.80 min vs. 36.6 ±6.72 min, p < 0.001). Concerning complications, 94% of EBL cases had reported no complications compared to 78% with HSP. Bleeding occurred only with HSP (20%) with urgent need for adrenaline and/or argon plasma coagulation (p = 0.003). Regarding cost, it was significantly lower in EBL than HSP (280 ±2.02 EGP vs. 390 ±181.8 EGP, p < 0.001). However, the recurrence rate of GHPs and number of needed sessions were not significantly different. EBL proved to be a safer, more rapid, and economic maneuver when compared to HSP on resecting GHPs in patients with liver cirrhosis.

Use of endoscopic band ligation alone and in combination with nonselective beta blockers for prevention of variceal bleeding in ascites patients on the liver transplant waiting list

Objective: to conduct a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of two methods – endoscopic band ligation (EBL) alone and in combination with nonselective beta blockers (NSBB) – used for prevention of variceal bleeding (VB); to evaluate their impact on patient survival in severe ascites during long-term stay on the liver transplant waiting list (LTWL). Materials and methods. A retrospective comparative study of two groups of patients with decompensated liver disease, ascites and varices included in the LTWL, who received EBL (n = 41, group 1) and EBL + NSBB (n = 45, group 2). Results. The groups being compared did not differ in demographics, clinical parameters, MELD and Child–Turcotte–Pugh scores. There were no significant differences in the incidence of severe ascites, particularly diuretic-resistant ascites. The study groups did not differ in the incidence of mediumand large-sized varices. Incidence of bleeding did not differ in both groups. Overall mortality was significantly higher in the EBL + NSBB group than in the EBL group. Patient survival was lower, while mortality was higher in the EBL + NSBB group. The combined therapy group had a significantly higher number of acute kidney injury (AKI) than the EBL group. Conclusion. The compared methods are equivalently effective in preventing VB in patients with decompensated cirrhosis with a prolonged stay on the waiting list. Survival rate is significantly lower, while mortality is significantly higher in the EBL + NSBB group than in the EBL group.

Endoscopic Detachable Snare Ligation Therapy for Colonic Diverticular Hemorrhage Improves Procedure Time Compared to Endoscopic Band Ligation.

The clipping method is widely used in endoscopic hemostasis for colonic diverticular hemorrhage. Recently, rebleeding was shown to be less common in ligation therapy than in clipping. Ligation methods include endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and endoscopic detachable snare ligation (EDSL). No studies have compared procedure times for EBL and EDSL. The present study aimed to compare EDSL and EBL in terms of procedure time. In this single-center retrospective observational cohort study, we evaluated the data of 39 patients who underwent EBL or EDSL for colonic diverticular hemorrhage. The primary and secondary outcomes measured were the total procedure time and early rebleeding rate, respectively. Among the 39 patients included in the study, 18 underwent EBL, and 21 underwent EDSL for hemostasis. The median total pro- cedure times for the EBL and EDSL groups were 50 (range, 30-80) minutes and 35 (range, 18-55) minutes, respectively, demonstrating that the total colonoscopy time was significantly shorter in the EDSL group (P < .001). The early rebleeding rate was 11.1% (2/18) in the EBL group and 4.8% (1/21) in the EDSL group (P = .246). Important improvements in procedure time were achieved in the EDSL group. Based on our results, we believe that EDSL may reduce patient and endoscopist burden.

Carvedilol versus endoscopic band ligation for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding-long-term follow-up of a randomised control trial.

Carvedilol reduces rates of variceal bleeding and rebleeding by lowering portal pressure. However, an associated pleiotropic survival benefit has been proposed. We aimed to assess long-term survival in a cohort of patients previously randomised to receive either carvedilol or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) following oesophageal variceal bleeding (OVB). The index study randomised 64 cirrhotic patients with OVB between 2006 and 2011 to receive either carvedilol or EBL. Follow-up was undertaken to April 2020 by review of electronic patient records. The primary outcome was survival. Other outcomes including variceal rebleeding and liver decompensation events were compared. 26 out of 33 participants received carvedilol in the follow-up period and 28 out of 31 attended regular EBL sessions. The median number of follow-up days for all patients recruited was 1459 (SE=281.74). On the intention to treat analysis, there was a trend towards improved survival in the carvedilol group (p=0.09). On per-protocol analysis, carvedilol use was associated with improved long-term survival (p=0.005, HR 3.083, 95% CI 1.397-6.809), fewer liver-related deaths (0% vs 22.57%, p=0.013, OR ∞, 95%CI 1.565-∞) and fewer admissions with decompensated liver disease (12% vs 64.29%, p=0.0002, OR 13.2, 95% CI 3.026-47.23) compared to the EBL group. There was no statistically significant difference in variceal rebleeding rates. Following OVB in cirrhotic patients, carvedilol use is associated with survival benefit, fewer liver-related deaths and fewer hospital admissions with decompensated liver disease. Further studies are needed to validate this finding.

To coagulate, ligate, or both: a randomized study comparing the safety and efficacy of two endoscopic approaches for managing gastric antral vascular ectasia in cirrhotic patients

BackgroundGastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) is an uncommon but important cause of gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhotic patients. Argon plasma coagulation (APC) is the standard therapy for GAVE. Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is an emerging, safe and effective treatment for GAVE. The best way of applying EBL in the management of GAVE is not clear yet.AimWe aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of APC alternating with EBL versus EBL alone for managing GAVE in cirrhotic patients.Patients and methodsForty cirrhotic patients with bleeding GAVE were randomized to receive either APC alternating with EBL (20 patients) or EBL alone (20 patients) until GAVE lesions are eradicated. Gastroscopy was done 6 months after eradication of GAVE lesions to document recurrence. Cessation of bleeding, rise of hemoglobin level, need for transfusion, hospitalization, complications, number of sessions, and recurrence of GAVE in both groups were statistically analyzed.ResultsPatients in both groups showed significantly high rate of bleeding cessation, improvement in hemoglobin levels, reduction in transfusions, and hospitalizations. There was no statistically significant difference regarding the recurrence of GAVE between the two groups. There were no complications seen in the combined therapy group. Twenty percent of the patients in the EBL group had complications including hypertrophied polyp formation and post-band ulcerations.ConclusionAPC alternating with EBL and EBL alone are effective methods in the treatment of bleeding GAVE. Combined therapy has the potential to decrease the number of banding sessions and the number of rubber bands required to treat GAVE, consequently decreasing the incidence of band-related complications.

Usefulness of direct clipping for the bleeding source of colonic diverticular hemorrhage (with videos).

Background and study aims The efficacy of endoclips for colonic diverticular hemorrhage remains unclear. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoclips versus endoscopic band ligation (EBL) for the treatment of colonic diverticular hemorrhage. Patients and methods At Nara City Hospital, 93 patients with colonic diverticular hemorrhage with stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) were treated using endoclips or EBL between January 2013 and December 2018. We classified the patients treated by endoclips into the direct clipping group and indirect clipping group. Endoclips were placed directly onto the vessel if technically feasible (direct clipping). When direct placement of endoclips onto the vessel was not possible, the diverticulum was closed in a zipper fashion (indirect clipping). Patient demographics, rate of early rebleeding within 30 days after initial treatment, and complications were retrospectively evaluated. Results Of the 93 patients, 34, 28, and 31 were in the direct clipping group, indirect clipping group, and EBL group, respectively. Rates of early rebleeding in the direct clipping, indirect clipping, and EBL groups were 5.9 % (2/34), 35.7 % (10/28), and 6.5 % (2/31), respectively ( P = 0.006: direct clipping vs indirect clipping, P = 1: direct clipping vs EBL). No complications occurred in any groups. All patients who had early rebleeding in the direct clipping group underwent EBL, and no further bleeding occurred after repeat therapy. Conclusions Direct clip placement is acceptable as the first treatment choice for colonic diverticular hemorrhage. When direct placement of endoclips is not possible, EBL should be performed instead of indirect clipping.

Risk factors of early rebleeding in the endoscopic management of colonic diverticular bleeding.

The risk factors for early rebleeding following the management of colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) are unclear. This study aimed to determine the risk factors for early rebleeding following initial colonoscopy. Overall, 370 patients with CDB were divided as having presumptive (229) or definite CDB with stigmata of recent hemorrhage (141) on the basis of initial colonoscopy. Definite CDB cases were treated by either endoscopic clipping (EC) or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) as a first-line treatment. Time-to-event analysis for early rebleeding was performed by Kaplan-Meier methods with log-rank test between the three groups (presumptive, EC, and EBL). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify risk factors for early rebleeding. There were 38 and 103 patients in the EC and EBL groups, respectively. Early rebleeding developed in 61 cases (16.5%). The cumulative incidence rates of early rebleeding at 1, 5, and 30days were 7.7%, 16.4%, and 17.9% in the presumptive group; 1.9%, 7.0%, and 9.5% in the EBL group; and 2.6%, 34.9%, and 37.7% in the EC group, respectively (log-rank test, P=0.00059). Moreover, 90.2% of early rebleeding occurred within 5days. Adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was marginally lower in the presumptive group (HR=0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-1.01; P=0.052) and significantly lower in the EBL-treated group than in the EC group (HR=0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.50; P=0.0004). Most early rebleeding occurred within 5days after initial colonoscopy. EC was less effective than EBL in terms of early rebleeding.

Carvedilol vs endoscopic band ligation for the prevention of variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis.

ObjectiveVariceal hemorrhage is the primary driver of mortality in patients with portal hypertension. Recent guidelines recommended that patients with esophageal varices should receive endoscopic band ligation (EBL) or carvedilol as prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. Several clinical trials have compared carvedilol use with EBL intervention, yielding controversial results. The present study aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the benefits and harms of carvedilol vs EBL for the prevention of variceal bleeding.MethodsStudies were searched on Pubmed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane library databases up to August 2018. Main outcomes in selected studies (variceal bleeding, all-cause deaths, bleeding-related deaths, and adverse events) were pooled into a meta-analysis.ResultsSeven RCTs were identified in this meta-analysis, including a total of 703 patients. A total of 359 patients were randomized to carvedilol group and 354 were randomized to EBL group. No significant difference in variceal bleeding was observed between carvedilol use and EBL groups (relative ratio [RR] =0.86, 95% CI =0.60–1.23, I2=11%), without publication bias. No significant difference was found neither for all-cause deaths (RR =0.82, 95% CI =0.44–1.53, I2=66%) nor for bleeding-related deaths (RR =0.85, 95% CI =0.39–1.87, I2=42%) in four included studies. Moreover, no reduced trend was observed toward adverse events in carvedilol group compared with that in EBL group (RR =1.32, 95% CI =0.75–2.31, I2=81%).ConclusionThere is no significant difference between carvedilol use and EBL intervention for the prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patient with esophageal varices. Large-scale clinical trials are further needed to make a confirmed conclusion.

Lower Rebleeding Rate after Endoscopic Band Ligation than Endoscopic Clipping of the Same Colonic Diverticular Hemorrhagic Lesion: A Historical Multicenter Trial in Saga, Japan.

Objective This historical control study was performed to evaluate i) the rebleeding rate of bleeding colon diverticula treated with endoscopic band ligation (EBL) versus endoscopic clipping (EC) and ii) risk factors for rebleeding of diverticula initially treated by endoscopic hemostasis. Methods From January 2010 to December 2012, 68 patients were treated with EC, and from January 2013 to August 2016, 67 patients were treated with EBL. All patients in each group were followed up for one year to check for rebleeding. Results The rebleeding rate was lower in the EBL group (7 of 67, 10%) than in the EC group (21 of 68, 31%; p<0.01). This difference was mainly due to the lower rebleeding rate from the same hemorrhagic diverticulum initially treated by hemostasis (EBL: 4 of 67, 6%; EC: 15 of 68, 22%; p<0.01). The time span until rebleeding in the EBL group was ≤1 week. A multivariate analysis indicated that bleeding from the diverticula on the right side of the colon was a high-risk factor for rebleeding from the diverticula (odds ratio, 4.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-16.46; p=0.02). Conclusion The low rebleeding rate in the EBL group was attributed to the low degree of rebleeding from the same diverticulum, indicating that EBL was superior to EC in preventing rebleeding of an initially treated diverticulum.

Endoscopic management of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease

Objective: Despite the therapeutic and surgical interventions for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), yet the high cost and the post-operative complications had led to a significant socioeconomic burden. The aim was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) in the management of refractory GERD.Methods: A total of 150 patients with refractory GERD were assigned to an EBL group (banding was done at four quadrants just at the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) (n = 75) or to a control group (optimized dose of PPI, n = 75). Follow-up for both groups by upper GI endoscopy to evaluate the site of the Z line from the incisors, the width of the GEJ and the coaptation of GEJ around the endoscope on retroflection. PH monitoring was performed every 3 months with GERD- QoL assessment monthly for 1 year.Results: In EBL group; 58 patients (77.3%) needed 1 session, 17 patients (22.7%) needed 2 sessions. 4 rubber bands were utilized in 44 patients (58.7%), 3 rubber bands in 31 patients (41.3%). Follow-up for 1 year revealed a highly significant improvement of the GERD- QoL score, the site of Z line with significant reduction of reflux episodes and symptom index when compared to the medical treatment group. In EBL group; there were no major adverse events including bleeding, post band ulcers, stenosis at one year follow up.Conclusion: The current study provides a novel endoscopic intervention to treat refractory GERD, which is safe, cost-effective, with no major adverse effects at one year follow up.

The Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Band Ligation for Colonic Diverticular Hemorrhage: 2016 ACG Presidential Poster Award

Introduction: Colonic diverticular hemorrhage is a common cause of lower gastrointestinal bleedings. However, low detection rate of a responsible diverticulum for bleeding and high early rebleeding rate after endoscopic hemostasis, are clinical problems. Recently, several papers reported the usefulness endoscopic band ligation (EBL) for colonic diverticular hemorrhage. However, the efficacy and safety of EBL were unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EBL for colonic diverticular hemorrhage compared with endoscopic clipping. Methods: From April 2012 to March 2016, total 260 cases of 129 patients who were suspected diverticular hemorrhage in our hospital were enrolled. Urgent colonoscopy was performed within 24 hours from arrival to our hospital. Diverticular hemorrhage was diagnosed as active bleeding from a diverticulum, a visible non-bleeding vessel within a diverticulum, or a densely adherent clot despite vigorous irrigation based on the physician's decision. Hemostasis was performed with clipping or EBL. We evaluate the successful rate of the endoscopic procedure, early rebleeding rate within thirty days and adverse event between clipping and EBL groups. Results: Colonic diverticular hemorrhage was diagnosed in 85 of 260 cases (32.7%). EBL was firstly attempted in 35 cases. However EBL was failure in three cases despite sufficient suction, and was converted to clipping. Therefore, these three cases were subsumed in the clipping group. Successful rate of clipping and EBL were 100% (53/53) and 91.4% (32/35), respectively (p-value=0.066). Early rebleeding rate of clipping and EBL was 43.4% (23/53) and 6.3% (2/32) respectively (p-value < 0.05). Two patients in the clipping group were required for interventional radiology and surgery because of endoscopic treatment was failure. No adverse event was found in both groups. Conclusion: EBL is reasonable for hemostasis of colonic diverticular hemorrhage because of ligating the inverted diverticular with a bleeding vessel. Our data demonstrated that the rebleeding rate of the EBL group was significantly lower than that of the clipping group. Therefore, EBL would be the alternative endoscopic hemostasis for colonic diverticular hemorrhage. In conclusion, EBL would be safe, effective, and superior to clipping for the hemostasis of colonic diverticular hemorrhage.

Randomized controlled study of endoscopic band ligation and argon plasma coagulation in the treatment of gastric antral and fundal vascular ectasia.

Gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) is characterized by mucosal and submucosal vascular ectasia causing recurrent hemorrhage and thus, chronic anemia, in patients with cirrhosis. Treatment with argon plasma coagulation (APC) is an effective and safe method, but requires multiple sessions of endoscopic therapy. Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) was found to be a good alternative for APC as a treatment for GAVE, especially in refractory cases. The aim of this prospective randomized controlled study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EBL, as compared to APC, in the treatment of GAVE and gastric fundal vascular ectasia (GFVE). A total of 88 cirrhotic patients with GAVE were prospectively randomized to endoscopic treatment with either EBL or APC, every 2 weeks until complete obliteration was accomplished; then they were followed up endoscopically after 6 months, plus they had monthly measurement of hemoglobin levels during that period. We describe the presence of mucosal and submucosal lesions in the gastric fundal area that were similar to those found in GAVE in 13 patients (29.5%) of the EBL group and 9 patients (20.5%) of the APC group; we named this GFVE. In these cases, we treated the fundal lesions with the same techniques we had used for treating GAVE, according to the randomization. We found that EBL significantly decreased the number of sessions required for complete obliteration of the lesions (2.98 sessions compared to 3.48 sessions in the APC group (p < 0.05)). Hemoglobin levels increased significantly after obliteration of the lesions in both groups, compared to pretreatment values (p < 0.05), but with no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05); however, the EBL group of patients required a significantly smaller number of units of blood transfusion than the APC group of patients (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in adverse events nor complications between the two groups (p > 0.05). This study described and histologically proved the presence of GFVE occurring comcomitantly with GAVE in cirrhotic patients. We showed that GFVE can be successfully managed by EBL or APC. Our study revealed that EBL is more effective and is comparable in safety to APC, in the treatment of GAVE and GFVE in cirrhotic patients.

Clinical outcome of endoscopic management of duodenal Dieulafoy's lesions: endoscopic band ligation versus endoscopic hemoclip placement.

The most appropriate type of endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding due to duodenal Dieulafoy's lesions (DLs) is not yet established. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of mechanical endoscopic hemostasis for duodenal DLs and long-term outcome after successful hemostasis, as well as to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and endoscopic hemoclip placement (EHP). Patients admitted to the emergency unit with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding from duodenal DLs were enrolled in this study. The data were collected prospectively, but data analysis was performed retrospectively. Twenty-four patients with duodenal DLs were treated with EBL (n=11) or EHP (n=13). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to clinical or endoscopic characteristics, apart from the number of epinephrine (three cases with EBL vs. 11 cases with EHP; p=0.011). Primary hemostasis was achieved in all patients. Recurrent bleeding was observed in one patient (9.1%) from the EBL group and in five patients (38.5%) from the EHP group (p=0.166). The recurrent bleeding in the patient from the EBL group was treated by EHP. In the EHP group, all five patients achieved successful secondary hemostasis by endoscopic treatment (EBL in two patients and EHP in three patients). There were no differences in secondary outcomes between the two groups, including the number of endoscopic sessions required, need for angiographic embolization or emergent surgery, transfusion requirements, or length of hospital stay. No complications occurred, and there was no recurrence of bleeding in either group during the follow-up period. Mechanical endoscopic treatments are effective and safe for the treatment of bleeding duodenal DLs. A large-scale, randomized, controlled study is required to confirm the efficacy and safety of EBL and EHP for the management of bleeding duodenal DLs.

Comparison of long-term outcomes between endoscopic band ligation and endoscopic clipping for colonic diverticular hemorrhage

Background and study aims: Long-term outcomes of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) for colonic diverticular hemorrhage have not been reported to date. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term outcomes of EBL and to retrospectively compare them with those of endoscopic clipping (EC) in the treatment of colonic diverticular hemorrhage. Patients and methods: The study included patients with colonic diverticular hemorrhage who were treated with EBL or EC from January 2004 to November 2014 and followed up more than 1 year (61 patients in the EBL group and 39 patients in the EC group). Time-to-event analysis of rebleeding was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method. A follow-up colonoscopy was performed to confirm the disappearance of the banded diverticula in the EBL group. Results: Rebleeding occurred in 21 patients in the EBL group and in 26 patients in the EC group. The cumulative incidence of rebleeding at 1, 12, 24, and 36 months after first treatments was 14 %, 23 %, 26 %, and 41 % in the EBL group and 38 %, 49 %, 59 %, and 68 % in the EC group, respectively. Time-to-event analysis revealed statistically significant data (Log-rank test, P = 0.0036). Scar formation with fold convergence at the previously banded site was observed in 11 of 24 patients who underwent follow-up colonoscopy (46 %). However, late rebleeding (rebleeding more than 30 days after EBL) occurred in five of these 11 cases. Conclusions: EBL was superior to EC in the treatment of colonic diverticular hemorrhage. However, the risk of rebleeding was not avoided even after the diverticula had been resolved using EBL.

Small Duodenal Carcinoids

We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided endoscopic resection (ER) and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) for autoamputation of small duodenal carcinoids. The ideal management of small duodenal carcinoid tumors remains unclear. A retrospective review of duodenal carcinoids over a 10-year period (2002 to 2012) was performed at our tertiary-care teaching hospital. All patients with duodenal carcinoids ≤10 mm in size treated with either ER or EBL were included. The main outcome measurements were the efficacy and safety of endotherapy. A total of 37 patients with 39 subcentimeter duodenal carcinoids were identified. In the EBL group, the mean (SD) tumor size was 6.7±2.1 mm compared with 6.7±1.7 mm in the ER group (P=0.943). The mean Ki-67 index was ≤2% in specimens available for histologic analysis in both groups (16/23 EBL and 15/16 ER). The positive deep margin rate in the ER group was 68.8%. Residual carcinoid tumor cells were detected on follow-up biopsies in 1 patient after EBL, and 2 patients after ER. All underwent subsequent successful endotherapy. No adverse events occurred in the EBL group compared with an 18.8% adverse event rate in the ER group (P=0.066). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided EBL is a safe, effective method for removal of small superficial duodenal carcinoids and seems to be a lower risk alternative to conventional ER with cautery.

Clinical outcome comparison between TIPS and EBL in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis.

The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis (PVT). We retrospectively reviewed the January to September 2010 data from our database and included 25 patients with cirrhosis and PVT who underwent successful TIPS creation. We selected another 25 patients who underwent EBL matching for age, sex, and Child-Pugh-Turcotte class. The outcome measures included changes in the PVT status before and after the treatments, the rebleeding rate, and the overall survival. The mean follow-up was 25.1 ± 8.7 months in the EBL group and 25.6 ± 8.5 months in the TIPS group (P = 0.85). After treatments, the PVT severity improved in 40% and worsened in 25% of patients who did not undergo TIPS, compared with 87% and none of the patients who underwent TIPS (P < 0.001). Previous splenectomy (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.76, P = 0.024) and patency status of TIPS (OR 20.8, 95% CI 3.0-141.8, P = 0.002) were the independent factors associated with PVT disappearance. The 1- and 2-year rebleeding rates were, respectively, 44.6% and 59.0% in the EBL group, and 12.5% and 25.2% in the TIPS group (P = 0.002). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were, respectively, 95.7% and 85.2% in the EBL group, and 96% and 78.7% in the TIPS group (P = 0.203). The MELD score was the only independent predictive factor for survival (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.27-2.37, P = 0.001). Compared with EBL, TIPS contributed to PVT improvement and reduced the risk of rebleeding without providing a survival benefit for patients with PVT.

Comparison of endoscopic band ligation and endoclip closure of colonic perforation: Technical feasibility and efficacy in an ex vivo pig model

Recent reports have indicated several instances of successful treatment of bowel perforation by using endoscopic band ligation (EBL) when treatment with endoclipping is unsuccessful, but this salvage method has not been investigated in any prospective model. Herein we aimed to compare the technical feasibility and efficacy of EBL and endoclip use in intraluminal closure of colon perforation, in an ex vivo model. Standardized colonic perforations were created using fresh porcine colon and subsequently closed by full-thickness interrupted sutures, endoclip (QuickClip2(TM)), or EBL. Each closure site was tested with compressed air by using a digital pressure monitor for evaluating leak pressure. No significant differences were noted between the endoclip and EBL in leak pressures. Mean (± SD) pressures for air leakage from the perforations closed using the different devices were as follows: normal colon samples, 52.0 ± 13.2 mmHg; perforations closed with hand-sewn sutures, 32.3 ± 8.3 mmHg; perforations closed with endoclipping, 53.5 ± 22.7 mmHg; and perforations closed with EBL, 50.4 ± 12.5 mmHg. Time taken for closure by EBL was significantly less than that for closure by endoclipping (3.2 ± 1.7 min vs 6.8 ± 1.3 min, P < 0.01). Further, the number of devices used to achieve complete closure in the EBL group was lower than that with endoclipping (1.6 ± 0.5 vs 3.7 ± 0.8, P < 0.01). Endoluminal closure of a 1.5-cm colon perforation with EBL decreased procedure time and was not inferior in leak pressure compared with endoclipping in this ex vivo porcine model.

Hemostatic efficacy and clinical outcome of endoscopic treatment of Dieulafoy's lesions: comparison of endoscopic hemoclip placement and endoscopic band ligation

The most suitable mechanical endoscopic hemostasis for a bleeding Dieulafoy's lesion (DL) is not yet well established. To compare the hemostatic efficacy and clinical outcome of endoscopic hemoclip placement (EHP) and endoscopic band ligation (EBL). Retrospective, single-center study. A tertiary-care referral university hospital. Sixty-six patients who received mechanical endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding DLs. Endoscopic hemostasis. Primary hemostasis and rebleeding rates. DLs accounted for 3.8% of cases of acute nonvariceal upper GI bleeding during the study period. Active bleeding from DLs was noted in 34 patients (51.5%). EHP and EBL were performed as a method of endoscopic hemostasis in 34 and 32 patients, respectively. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups with respect to baseline characteristics (except comorbidities) and endoscopic features of DLs. Primary hemostasis was achieved in all 66 patients (100%). There were 6 cases of recurrent bleeding: 5 (14.7%) and 1 (3.1%) in the EHP and EBL groups, respectively. Secondary hemostasis was achieved with endoscopic treatment and angiographic embolization in 5 patients and 1 patient, respectively, and no patients required surgery. The mean procedure time of endoscopic hemostasis was significantly longer in the EHP group (19.1 vs 11.5 minutes, P = .015). There was no bleeding-related mortality. Retrospective analysis. Both EHP and EBL are suitable for the treatment of bleeding DLs. EBL can be used as an initial hemostatic method for bleeding DLs because of a favorable clinical outcome comparable to that with EHP and a shorter procedure time.

Does sclerotherapy of remnant little oesophageal varices after endoscopic ligation have impact on the reduction of recurrent varices?: Prospective study

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is superior to endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) of oesophageal varices, however, EBL is associated with a higher rate of variceal recurrences. To examine whether the reduction of recurrent varices can be achieved by additional sclerotherapy of remnant little varices after ligation. Forty-eight patients with liver cirrhosis who had previously bled from oesophageal varices were examined. Endoscopic therapy was performed in order to prevent recurrent variceal bleeding. I group: in 23 patients ligation of oesophageal varices with multi band ligation device was applied (EBL group). II group: in 25 patients sclerotherapy using polydocanol or absolute alcohol was applied after reducing the size of varices using ligation (EBL and EIS group). There was no statistically significant difference between the examined groups of patients in relation to the number of sessions for variceal eradication, recurrence of variceal bleeding, deterioration of portal gastropathy and mortality in the observed period from 18.8 +/- 18.6 months (EBL group) and 22.2 +/- 26.2 months (EBL and EIS group). Variceal recurrence was verified in 21.7% of patients of the EBL group and 16% of the EBL and EIS group, but the difference was not statistically important. Several complications, such as dysphagia and chest pain, were statistically more frequent in the EBL and EIS group of patients. The combined method of ligation and extra sclerosing of remnant small oesophageal varices after ligation does not have advantage in relation to the ligation alone.