Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided primary and secondary prophylaxis for gastric variceal bleeding

Abstract

ObjectivesEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)‐guided injection of cyanoacrylate (CYA) for primary prophylaxis (PP) of gastric varices (GV) is controversial. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of this intervention.MethodsPatients treated for PP of GV bleeding by EUS injection of CYA with or without coils were identified. Endoscopic techniques, outcomes, and adverse events (AEs) were reviewed and compared with a group treated for secondary prophylaxis (SP). Patients were followed until: (i) loss to follow‐up; (ii) GV bleeding; (iii) interventional radiology or surgery decompression; (iv) liver transplant; or (v) death or comfort care.ResultsOne hundred and nineteen patients (61 men; mean 59 ± 12 years) underwent EUS for PP (n = 24) or SP (n = 95). The PP group was treated with CYA alone (n = 18) or with coils (n = 4). Eight (33%) mild (n = 6) or moderate (n = 2) AEs and no index GV bleeding occurred during a mean of 6.1 ± 5.9 months follow‐up. Repeat EUS in 22 (92%) PP patients showed 7 (32%) residual GVs, which were retreated with CYA alone (n = 6) or with coils (n = 1). Two (29%) mild (n = 1) or moderate (n = 1) AEs occurred after repeat EUS and 1/22 (5%) index GV bleed occurred during a mean 23 ± 25 months follow‐up. Compared to the SP group, the PP group had lower Model for End‐stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (P = 0.03), fewer GV stigmata (P < 0.001), required less CYA (P = 0.019) during index EUS, and had a longer time between index and surveillance EUS (P = 0.014). The incidence of AEs and GV bleeding between the two groups were similar.ConclusionPosttreatment GV bleeding and AEs are similar following EUS‐guided primary and secondary GV prophylaxis.