Volume 17, Issue 6 pp. 392-398
Original article

Cyanoacrylate therapy for the treatment of gastric varices: a new method

Virendra Singh

Corresponding Author

Virendra Singh

Department of Hepatology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Correspondence to: Virendra SINGH, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Hepatology, Chandigarh, India. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
Ranjan Singh

Ranjan Singh

Department of Hepatology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Search for more papers by this author
Ashish Bhalla

Ashish Bhalla

Department of Internal Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Search for more papers by this author
Navneet Sharma

Navneet Sharma

Department of Internal Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 23 April 2016
Citations: 5
Conflict of interest: none

Abstract

Objective

Cyanoacrylate (CYA) injection is recommended for bleeding gastric varices (GV) but with significant adverse effects. Transesophageal endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapy of large GV with a combined coil and CYA injection has shown promising results. However, it is expensive and requires technical expertise. In this study, we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a new method with UCYA [undiluated CYA (UCYA) followed by lipiodol-diluated CYA (DCYA)] in the management of large bleeding GV.

Methods

Fifteen consecutive patients with bleeding from large GV (>1 cm) were prospectively treated with DCYA and another 15 patients treated with UCYA retrospectively. All patients in the DCYA group underwent thoracic computed tomography scan to identify glue embolism.

Results

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Rates of GV obliteration and rebleeding were 100% vs 93.3% (P = 0.309) and 6.7% vs 33.3% (P = 0.06) in the DCYA and UCYA groups, respectively. One patient in the UCYA group had needle fixation which led to fatal bleeding after forceful needle extraction. In DCYA group none had glue embolism.

Conclusions

Both UCYA and DCYA are effective in treating bleeding from large GV. DCYA has lower rebleeding rates and tends to have fewer adverse events than UCYA injection, although the differences are not statistically significant. Large-sample-sized prospective randomized trials are required.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.