Over the past several years, there has been a wealth of new data pertaining to the management of complications of cirrhosis, resulting in several important updates to best practices and consensus guidelines. Despite these advancements and numerous recent targeted quality initiatives, hospitalizations resulting from complications of cirrhosis remain frequent, costly and associated with poor patient outcomes. An emphasis on evidence-based management of hospitalized patients with decompensated cirrhosis has the potential to decrease readmission rates and length of stay while improving overall patient outcomes. Herein, we provide an updated, evidence-based overview of the optimal inpatient management of the most frequently encountered complications associated with cirrhosis.

The term "endohepatology" was coined over the last 15 years to describe the integration of interventional endoscopy and hepatology for the management of patients with chronic liver disease. In this article, we will review the diagnostic and therapeutic applications of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography among liver transplantation candidates and recipients.

Portal hypertension (PH) is a complication of advanced liver diseases, including cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, often leading to unfavorable outcomes. Endo-hepatology, particularly endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has revolutionized the assessment of PH. Notably, EUS-guided portal pressure gradient (EUS-PPG) enables measurement of portal and hepatic venous pressures, offering diagnostic precision for both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic forms of PH, including porto-sinusoidal vascular disorder (PSVD). EUS-based assessment of PH in advanced liver disease can refine diagnostic workup and prognostication, supporting therapeutic decisions. Additionally, EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) achieves high-quality histological samples with fewer complications compared to percutaneous techniques, enabling thorough evaluation of chronic liver diseases and vascular abnormalities. EUS-shear wave elastography (EUS-SWE) further refines stiffness measurements where standard imaging fails. Moreover, EUS plays a major role in controlling variceal hemorrhage, a severe PH complication. EUS-guided coil and cyanoacrylate injection for gastric varices demonstrate a great efficacy, often surpassing conventional endoscopy. Similarly, EUS-based identification and treatment of perforator vessels feeding esophageal varices reduce rebleeding risks, particularly in challenging patients. The combination of these state-of-the-art interventions supports a "one-stop strategy", integrating variceal screening, biopsy, and portal pressure measurement within a single procedure. Despite these advancements, refinements in sedation protocols, patient selection, and cost-effectiveness data are necessary. While noninvasive tools remain central in guidelines, EUS-based methods continue to expand their role, especially in complex cases. This review summarizes the applications and impact of EUS in evaluating PH, emphasizing its importance in contemporary hepatology and its potential as a pivotal diagnostic modality in cirrhosis complicated by PH.

To investigate the role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the diagnosis and treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding of unknown origin in liver cirrhosis, focusing on patients with recurrent treatment of esophageal and gastric varices who failed to identify the bleeding site under direct endoscopy.

Esophagogastric variceal bleeding is one of the severe complications of decompensated liver cirrhosis, and serial endoscopic therapy can improve the long-term quality of life of patients. Most acute bleeding can be detected under direct endoscopy with thrombus or active bleeding, but there are still some patients with recurrent bleeding after repeated treatments, and it is difficult to find the bleeding site, especially in gastric variceal bleeding. Therefore, it is of great significance to identify the bleeding site.

A total of 88 patients with liver cirrhosis bleeding diagnosed and treated under EUS were collected in this study, including 26 patients who failed to identify the bleeding site under direct endoscopy. EUS was used to scan the bleeding site, and EUS-guided treatment was performed. The characteristics of the bleeding site under direct endoscopy and EUS and the follow-up results after surgery were analyzed.

Among the 26 patients, 16 patients (16/26, 61.5%) showed red color signs of gastric fundus mucosa under direct endoscopy, 5 patients (5/26, 19.2%) showed punctate erosion, and the remaining 5 patients (5/26, 19.2%) showed no abnormal mucosal manifestations. All patients could find anechoic blood vessels under EUS, and blood flow signals could be detected within. Among them, 23 patients (23/26, 88.5%) chose EUS-guided treatment, and no rebleeding occurred after surgery. Another 3 patients (3/26, 11.5%) were given endoscopic variceal ligation due to small esophageal and gastric varices and inability to perform intravascular injection. The median follow-up time was 86 days. Adverse reactions included 5 cases of retrosternal pain (5/23, 21.7%), and 1 case of fever (1/23, 4.3%).

EUS can detect submucosal varices in the gastric mucosa, and these bleeding sites may present as red color signs or punctate erosion under direct endoscopy.

Although the incidence of isolated gastric varices type 1 (IGV1) bleeding is low, the condition is highly dangerous and associated with high mortality, making its treatment challenging. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic clipping combined with cyanoacrylate injection (EC-CYA) vs. transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in treating IGV1.

In a single-center, randomized controlled trial, patients with IGV1 bleeding were randomly assigned to the EC-CYA group or TIPS group. The primary end-points were gastric variceal rebleeding rates and technical success. Secondary end-points included cumulative nonbleeding rates, mortality, and complications.

A total of 156 patients between January 2019 and April 2023 were selected and randomly assigned to the EC-CYA group (n = 76) and TIPS group (n = 80). The technical success rate was 100% for both groups. The rebleeding rates were 14.5% in the EC-CYA group and 8.8% in the TIPS group, showing no significant difference (P = 0.263). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the cumulative nonbleeding rates at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months for the two groups lacked statistical significance (P = 0.344). Similarly, cumulative survival rates at 12, 24, and 36 months for the two groups were not statistically significant (P = 0.916). The bleeding rates from other causes were 13.2% and 6.3% for the respective groups, showing no significant difference (P = 0.144). No instances of ectopic embolism were observed in either group. The incidence of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) in the TIPS group was statistically higher than that in the EC-CYA group (P = 0.001).

Both groups are effective in controlling IGV1 bleeding. Notably, EC-CYA did not result in ectopic embolism, and the incidence of HE was lower than that observed with TIPS.

Gastric variceal bleeding occurs less commonly than bleeding from esophageal varices (EVs), although it is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. Bleeding from gastroesophageal varices type 1 (GOV1) is treated like EVs. In contrast, other forms of gastric variceal bleeding, including gastroesophageal varices type 2 (GOV2) and isolated gastric varices types 1 (IGV1) and 2 (IGV2), are treated with varying endoscopic approaches. Nonendoscopic methods include transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO). This technology report focuses on endoscopic management of gastric varices (GVs).

The MEDLINE database was searched through August 2022 for relevant articles by using key words such as gastric varices, glue, cyanoacrylate, thrombin, sclerosing agents, band ligation, topical hemostatic spray, coils, EUS, TIPS, and BRTO. The article was drafted, reviewed, and edited by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE.

Endoscopic injection with cyanoacrylate (CYA) glue has been the primary endoscopic method to treat GVs. EUS-guided angiotherapy with CYA glue and coil embolization has emerged as an alternative method enabling improved detection of GVs with a high technical success for targeting and obliterating GVs. Combining CYA glue with coil therapy allows the coil to act as a scaffold for the glue, reducing the risk of glue embolization and improving outcomes. Alternative injectates or topical treatments have been described but remain poorly studied.

The mainstay paradigm for the endoscopic management of gastric variceal bleeding is the injection of CYA glue. The published success of EUS-guided angiotherapy using CYA glue with or without embolization coils has increased our treatment armamentarium.

In this letter we comment on the article by Zhang et al published in the recent issue of the World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2024. We focus specifically on the management of gastric varices (GV), which is a significant consequence of portal hypertension, is currently advised to include beta-blocker therapy for primary prophylaxis and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for secondary prophylaxis or active bleeding. Although it has been studied, direct endoscopic injection of cyanoacrylate glue has limitations, such as the inability to fully characterize GV endoscopically and the potential for distant glue embolism. In order to achieve this, endoscopic ultrasound has been used to support GV characterization, real-time therapy imaging, and Doppler obliteration verification.

EUS-guided coil plus glue injection has emerged as a safe and effective modality for gastric varices (GVs). Very few studies have compared EUS embolization with the direct endoscopic glue injection (EGI) technique for its safety and effectiveness. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the outcomes of EUS-guided coil plus glue injection versus EGI.

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies that compared EUS and EGI for GVs, and 1454 articles were screened following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol. Endpoints were pulmonary embolism, recurrent bleeding rate, reintervention rate, technical success, abdominal pain, and mortality rate. A restricted maximum likelihood random-effects model with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used for binary endpoints. Heterogeneity was evaluated through Cochrane's Q statistic and Higgins and Thompson's I2 statistic. Significance was defined as P < .05.

We included 6 studies with 445 patients treated for GVs. Mean patient age was 49 years, and 43% were women. EUS was associated with a reduction in recurrent bleeding rate (OR, .22; 95% CI, .11-.45; P < .001; I2 = 0) and reintervention rate (OR, .29; 95% CI, .09-.89; P = .03; I2 = 49%) compared with EGI. There were no differences between groups in pulmonary embolism (OR, .34; 95% CI, .10-1.18; P = .09; I2 = 0%), mortality rate (OR, .78; 95% CI, .28-2.13; P = .63; I2 = 0%), technical success (OR, 3.50; 95% CI, .60-20.49; P = .16; I2 = 0%), fever (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, .42-5.21 days; P = .5; I2 = 0%), and abdominal pain (OR, .96; 95% CI, .31-2.95; P = .94; I2 = 32%).

In patients with GVs, EUS-guided coil plus glue injection is associated with lower recurrent bleeding and reintervention rates than EGI with no difference in pulmonary embolization rate, abdominal pain, technical success, and mortality rate.

Multiple endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided therapeutic interventions have been developed for the management of benign and malignant pancreaticobiliary and gastrointestinal luminal pathology. Recent high-quality evidence is increasingly validating these interventions and positioning them within evidence-based therapeutic algorithms.

Here we review therapeutic EUS-guided interventions including pancreatic fluid collection drainage, gastroenterostomy, biliary drainage, pancreatic duct drainage and gallbladder drainage. The most up-to-date high-quality evidence supporting these interventions is presented including comparative data with other conventional treatment options. Newer emerging interventions such as tumor ablation are also reviewed. Current controversies and future avenues for research are discussed. The key role of EUS-guided interventions in managing pancreaticobiliary pathology in patients with a surgically altered anatomy is highlighted.

Multiple EUS therapeutic interventions have evolved from experimental or rescue options to now well established first- and second-line interventions over other endoscopic, percutaneous and surgical alternatives with the support of high-quality data. Further research is needed to better optimize patient selection and guide long term postintervention follow-up.

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a leading cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admission in pancreatic cancer patients.

To analyze causes, ICU mortality and hemostatic treatment success rates of GI bleeding in pancreatic cancer patients requiring ICU admission.

Retrospective multicenter cohort study between 2009 and 2021. Patients with a recent pancreatic resection surgery were excluded.

Ninety-five patients were included (62 % males, 67 years-old). Fifty-one percent presented hemorrhagic shock, 41 % required mechanical ventilation. Main GI bleeding causes were gastroduodenal tumor invasion (32 %), gastroesophageal varices (21 %) and arterial aneurysm (12 %). Arterial aneurysms were more frequent in patients with previous pancreatic resection (36 % vs 2 %, p < 0.001). Hemostatic procedures included gastroduodenal endoscopy in 81 % patients and arterial embolization in 28 % patients. ICU mortality was 19 %. Multivariate analysis identified four variables associated with mortality: performance status >2 (OR 9.34, p = 0.026), mechanical ventilation (OR 14.14, p = 0.003), treatment success (OR 0.09, p = 0.010), hemorrhagic shock (OR 11.24, p = 0.010). Treatment success was 46 % and was associated with aneurysmal bleeding (OR 29.89, p = 0.005), ongoing chemotherapy (OR 0.22, p = 0.016), and prothrombin time ratio (OR 1.05, p = 0.001).

In pancreatic cancer patients with severe GI bleeding, early identification of aneurysmal bleeding (particularly in case of previous resection surgery) and coagulopathy management may increase the treatment success and reduce mortality.

The Baveno VII consensus, released in 2023, recommends that the endoscopic treatment of choice for managing bleeding gastric varices (GV) is endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatment, specifically EUS-guided cyanoacrylate (CYA) glue injection. This approach has been endorsed due to its efficacy in controlling bleeding while reducing rebleeding rates, compared to other endoscopic techniques. Despite its efficacy, CYA injection for GV has been linked to rare but serious adverse events, such as glue embolization leading to pulmonary embolism, infection/bacteremia, splenic infarction, intra-procedural and post-procedural complications. The technique for endoscopic obliteration of GV was subsequently refined using EUS guidance, aiming to more accurately direct the injection into the varix, reduce the volume of injected glue, target the perforating vein when possible, and confirm obliteration of GV via Doppler examination.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has evolved from a diagnostic to an interventional modality, allowing precise vascular access and therapy. EUS-guided vascular access of the portal vein has received increasing attention in recent years as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool. EUS-guided portal pressure gradient directly measures the hepatic vein portal pressure gradient and is crucial for understanding of liver function and prognostication of liver disease. EUS facilitates the sampling of portal venous blood to obtain circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in pancreatobiliary malignancies. This technique aids in the diagnosis and staging of cancers. EUS-guided interventions have a substantial potential for diagnosing portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. EUS-guided coil and glue embolization have higher efficacy for the treatment of gastric varices than direct endoscopic glue. Pseudoaneurysm (PsA), a rare vascular complication of acute and chronic pancreatitis, is typically managed with interventional radiology (IR)-guided embolization and surgery. EUS is increasingly used in specialized centers for non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding, particularly for pseudoaneurysm-related bleeding. There is limited data on EUS-guided intervention for bleeding ectopic varices, rectal varices and Dieulafoy lesions, but it is becoming more widely accepted. In this extensive review, we evaluated both current and potential future applications of EUS-guided vascular interventions, including EUS-guided gastric variceal bleed therapy, rectal and ectopic varices, pseudoaneurysmal bleeding, splenic artery embolization, portal pressure gradient measurement, portal vein sampling for CTCs, fine needle aspiration of PVTT, intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement, liver tumor ablation and EUS-guided cardiac intervention.

Portal hypertension-related complications increase mortality in patients, irrespective of its etiology. Classically, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was used to assess the portal venous system and collaterals, considering size and hemodynamic parameters, which correlate with portal hypertension (PH) and related complications. Furthermore, therapeutic EUS guides treatment interventions, such as embolization of the gastric varices through coil placement and tissue adhesive injection, yielding encouraging clinical results. Recently, the direct measurement of portal pressure, emerging as an alternative to hepatic venous pressure gradient, has shown promise, and further research in this area is anticipated. In this review, we aimed to provide a detailed description of various possibilities for diagnosing vascular anatomy and hemodynamics in PH and actual knowledge on the EUS usefulness for PH vessel-related complications. Also, future promises for this field of endo-hepatology are discussed.

Gastric varices (GVs) are reported in up to 20% of patients with portal hypertension, and bleeding is often more severe and challenging than esophageal variceal bleeding. Data are limited on prophylaxis of GV bleeding or management in the acute setting, and different techniques are used. This study evaluated outcomes after EUS-guided placement of coils in combination with thrombin to manage GVs.

We retrospectively reviewed all patients treated with combination EUS-guided therapy with coils and thrombin between October 2015 and February 2020.

Twenty patients underwent 33 procedures for GV therapy; 16 of 20 (80%) had type 1 isolated GVs and 4 patients had type 2 gastroesophageal varices. The median follow-up was 842 days (interquartile range [IQR], 483-961). Seventeen patients (85%) had underlying cirrhosis, the most common etiologies being alcohol-related liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The median Child-Pugh score was 6 (IQR, 5-7). In 11 patients (55%), the indication was secondary prophylaxis to prevent recurrent bleeding; in 2 of 20 patients (10%), the bleeding was acute. Technical success was achieved in 19 patients (95%). During follow-up, the obliteration of flow within the varices was achieved in 17 patients (85%). The 6-week survival rate was 100%, and 2 adverse events, recurrent bleeding at day 5 and at day 37, were reported; both recurrent bleeding events were successfully managed endoscopically.

EUS-guided GV obliteration combining coil placement with thrombin, in our experience, was technically safe with good medium-term efficacy. A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing different treatment strategies is desirable to understand options better.

This review provides an overview of the treatment options available for gastric varices (GV) with a focus on endoscopic methods. Various minimally invasive techniques, including endoscopic band ligation, endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection, and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, can be applied to the treatment of GV. Endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection is now recognized as a first-line treatment for GV. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided cyanoacrylate injection combined with coils has shown good security and effectiveness. Thrombin injection therapy is a promising treatment, with a similar hemostasis rate to cyanoacrylate injection but with fewer serious complications. With the deepening understanding of the hemodynamics of the GV system, various treatment methods and their combination are gradually evaluated to provide patients with safer and more effective treatment options.

Endoscopic 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.

Patients 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.

One 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.

Posttreatment GV bleeding and AEs are similar following EUS-guided primary and secondary GV prophylaxis.

In hepatology, the clinical use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has experienced a notable increase in recent times. These applications range from the diagnosis to the treatment of various liver diseases. Therefore, this systematic review summarizes the evidence for the diagnostic and therapeutic roles of EUS in liver diseases.

To examine and summarize the current available evidence of the possible roles of the EUS in making a suitable diagnosis in liver diseases as well as the therapeutic accuracy and efficacy.

PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were extensively searched until October 2023. The methodological quality of the eligible articles was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale or Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. In addition, statistical analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.

Overall, 45 articles on EUS were included (28 on diagnostic role and 17 on therapeutic role). Pooled analysis demonstrated that EUS diagnostic tests had an accuracy of 92.4% for focal liver lesions (FLL) and 96.6% for parenchymal liver diseases. EUS-guided liver biopsies with either fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy had low complication rates when sampling FLL and parenchymal liver diseases (3.1% and 8.7%, respectively). Analysis of data from four studies showed that EUS-guided liver abscess had high clinical (90.7%) and technical success (90.7%) without significant complications. Similarly, EUS-guided interventions for the treatment of gastric varices (GV) have high technical success (98%) and GV obliteration rate (84%) with few complications (15%) and rebleeding events (17%).

EUS in liver diseases is a promising technique with the potential to be considered a first-line therapeutic and diagnostic option in selected cases.

Left-sided or segmental portal hypertension (SPHT) is a rare entity, most often associated with pancreatic disease or antecedent pancreatic surgery. The starting point is splenic vein obstruction secondary to local inflammation or, less often, extrinsic compression. SPHT leads to splenomegaly and development of collateral porto-systemic venous circulation. SPHT should be suspected in patients with pancreatic history who present with episodic upper gastrointestinal bleeding and splenomegaly with normal liver function tests. The most common clinical presentation is major upper gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to rupture of esophageal and/or gastric varices. At the present time, there are no management recommendations for SPHT, particularly when the patient is asymptomatic. In patients with upper gastro-intestinal bleeding, hemostasis can be obtained either by medical or interventional means according to patient status and available resources. For symptomatic patients, splenectomy is the reference treatment. Recently, less invasive, radiologic procedures, such as splenic artery embolization, have been developed as an alternative to surgery. Additionally, sonography-guided endoscopic hemostasis can also be envisioned, leading to the diagnosis and treatment of the lesion by elastic band ligation or by glue injection into the varices during the same procedure. The goal of this article is to describe the pathophysiological mechanisms behind SPHT and its clinical manifestations and treatment, based on a review of the literature. Because of the absence of recommendations for the management of SPHT, we propose a decisional algorithm for the management of SPHT based on the literature.

Background: Although bleeding from gastric varices is less observed than esophageal variceal bleeding (VB) (25% vs. 64%), it is associated with an exceedingly high mortality rate of up to 45%. Current guidelines suggest that endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection therapy (ECI) is the first-line treatment for gastric variceal bleeding (GVB). A major concern, however, is the possibility of embolic incidents, which are clinically evident in approximately 1% of cases. There are no guidelines for secondary prophylaxis of GVB. Radiological treatments using a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) or balloon occlusive transvenous obliteration (BRTO) are considered viable. However, they are not universally inapplicable; for instance, in the setting of pulmonary hypertension (TIPS). EUS-guided combined injection therapy (EUS-CIT) (embolization coils + cyanoacrylate) is an emerging procedure with a perceived reduced risk of systemic embolization. Case presentation: A patient with alcoholic liver cirrhosis was subjected to EUS-CIT as a secondary prophylaxis for GVB. He had three VB episodes of prior presentation treated by endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and ECI. Due to recurrent episodes of bleeding, he was referred to TIPS, but was considered contraindicated due to severe pulmonary hypertension. EUS-CIT was conducted with two embolization coils inserted into the varix, followed by an injection of 1.5 mL of cyanoacrylate glue. A 19 Ga needle, 0.035″ 14/70 mm coils, non-diluted n-butyl-caynoacrylate, and a transgastric approach were utilized. There were no immediate complications. Complete obliteration of the GV was observed in a follow-up endoscopy on day 30. Subsequent endoscopies in months three and six showed no progression of gastric varices. Conclusions: Our initial experience with EUS-CIT suggests that it can be successfully used as secondary prophylaxis for recurrent GVB.

Recent advances in the field of hepatology include new and effective treatments for viral hepatitis. Further effort is now being directed to other disease entities, such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, with an increased need for assessment of liver function and histology. In fact, with the evolving nomenclature of fat-associated liver disease and the emergence of the term "metabolic-associated fatty liver disease" (MAFLD), new diagnostic challenges have emerged as patients with histologic absence of steatosis can still be classified under the umbrella of MAFLD. Currently, there is a growing number of endoscopic procedures that are pertinent to patients with liver disease. Indeed, interventional radiologists mostly perform interventional procedures such as percutaneous and intravascular procedures, whereas endoscopists focus on screening for and treatment of esophageal and gastric varices. EUS has proven to be of value in many areas within the realm of hepatology, including liver biopsy, assessment of liver fibrosis, measurement of portal pressure, managing variceal bleeding, and EUS-guided paracentesis. In this review article, we will address the endoscopic applications that are used to manage patients with chronic liver disease.

Despite the significant morbidity associated with gastric variceal bleeding, there is a paucity of high-quality data regarding optimal management. EUS-guided coil injection therapy (EUS-COIL) has recently emerged as a promising endoscopic modality for the treatment of gastric varices (GV), particularly compared with traditional direct endoscopic glue injection. Although there are data on the feasibility and safety of EUS-COIL in the management of GV, these have been limited to select centers with particular expertise. The aim of this study was to report the first U.S. multicenter experience of EUS-COIL for the management of GV.

This retrospective analysis included patients with bleeding GV or GV at risk of bleeding who underwent EUS-COIL at 10 U.S. tertiary care centers between 2018 and 2022. Baseline patient and procedure-related information was obtained. EUS-COIL entailed the injection of .018 inch or .035 inch hemostatic coils using a 22-gauge or 19-gauge FNA needle. Primary outcomes were technical success (defined as successful deployment of coil into varix under EUS guidance with diminution of Doppler flow), clinical success (defined as cessation of bleeding if present and/or absence of bleeding at 30 days' postintervention), and intraprocedural and postprocedural adverse events.

A total of 106 patients were included (mean age 60.4 ± 12.8 years; 41.5% female). The most common etiology of GV was cirrhosis (71.7%), with alcohol being the most common cause (43.4%). Overall, 71.7% presented with acute GV bleeding requiring intensive care unit stay and/or blood transfusion. The most common GV encountered were isolated GV type 1 (60.4%). A mean of 3.8 ± 3 coils were injected with a total mean length of 44.7 ± 46.1 cm. Adjunctive glue or absorbable gelatin sponge was injected in 82% of patients. Technical success and clinical success were 100% and 88.7%, respectively. Intraprocedural adverse events (pulmonary embolism and GV bleeding from FNA needle access) occurred in 2 patients (1.8%), and postprocedural adverse events occurred in 5 (4.7%), of which 3 were mild. Recurrent bleeding was observed in 15 patients (14.1%) at a mean of 32 days. Eighty percent of patients with recurrent bleeding were successfully re-treated with repeat EUS-COIL. No significant differences were observed in outcomes between high-volume (>15 cases) and low-volume (<7 cases) centers.

This U.S. multicenter experience on EUS-COIL for GV confirms high technical and clinical success with low adverse events. No significant differences were seen between high- and low-volume centers. Repeat EUS-COIL seems to be an effective rescue option for patients with recurrent bleeding GV. Further prospective studies should compare this modality versus other interventions commonly used for GV.

In portal hypertension, gastric varix-associated bleeding is known to have higher transfusion requirements, uncontrolled bleeding, rebleeding, intensive care unit requirements, and death. EUS-guided coil insertion is now an acceptable modality for endoscopic management in cases of gastric varices. With this study, we discuss our large single-center experience in the use of EUS for coil and glue injection in gastric varices. We also look into adverse events associated with and possibilities of using this modality as both primary prophylaxis and a rescue therapy.

The study was conducted in a tertiary care center in India. A total of 86 patients were included in the study. The indication for EUS-guided coil and glue was divided into 3 clinical situations, namely, rebleed, rescue, and primary. The technical success and clinical success, that is, control of bleed in patients, were confirmed by absence of Doppler signal on EUS, endoscopic view, and stabilized hemoglobin with no need of blood product transfusion to maintain hemoglobin.

The mean Child-Turcotte-Pugh score and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Na score were 9.2 and 14.6, respectively. The mean size of the gastric varices was 18.9 mm. The mean number of coils used was 2.9, and the average quantity of glue required was 1.6 mL. The technical success was 100% across the patient group. Clinical success was seen in 90% of the patient group. Mean follow-up was seen for 175.2 days.

EUS-guided coil and glue therapy has a role in different clinical settings, as primary therapy, rebleed, and rescue therapy. It has significant technical and clinical success. Its role in treatment algorithms needs to be further studied in prospective studies. It may offer a cost advantage in comparison to interventional radiology-led interventions.

Interventional endoscopic ultrasound has fueled remarkable advancements in the field of therapeutic procedures, revolutionizing minimally invasive interventions for a diverse range of conditions. This review highlights the latest breakthroughs and advancements in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound, showcasing its potential to transform patient care.

The transcendence of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) from diagnostic to therapeutic tool has revolutionized management options in the field of gastroenterology. Through EUS-guided methods, pancreaticobiliary obstruction can now be utilized as an alternative to surgical and percutaneous approaches. This modality also allows for gallbladder drainage in patients who are not ideal operative candidates. By utilizing its unique imaging capabilities, EUS also allows for drainage access points in cases of gastric outlet obstruction as well as windows to ablate pancreatic cystic lesions. As technical progress continues to evolve, interventional gastroenterology continues to push the envelope of minimally invasive therapeutic procedures in a multidisciplinary setting. In this comprehensive review, we set out to describe current indications and innovations through EUS.

The purpose of this AGA Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence supporting and examine opportunities for future research in endoscopic ultrasound-guided vascular investigation and therapies.

This Clinical Practice Update was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. This expert commentary incorporates important as well as recently published studies in this field, and it reflects the experiences of the authors who are advanced endoscopists with expertise in endoscopic ultrasound-guided vascular investigation and therapy.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has expanded its arena from a mere diagnostic modality to an essential therapeutic tool in managing gastrointestinal (GI) diseases. The proximity of the GI tract to the vascular structures in the mediastinum and the abdomen has facilitated the growth of EUS in the field of vascular interventions. EUS provides important clinical and anatomical information related to the vessels' size, appearance and location. Its excellent spatial resolution, use of colour doppler with or without contrast enhancement and ability to provide images "real-time" helps in precision while intervening vascular structures. Additionally, structures such as venous collaterals or varices can be dealt with optimally using EUS. EUS-guided vascular therapy with coil and glue combination has revolutionized the management of portal hypertension. It also helps to avoid radiation exposure in addition to being minimally invasive. These advantages have led EUS to become an upcoming modality to complement traditional interventional radiology in the field of vascular interventions. EUS-guided portal vein (PV) access and therapy is a new kid on the block. EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement, injecting chemotherapy in PV and intrahepatic portosystemic shunt has expanded the horizons of endo-hepatology. Lastly, EUS has also forayed into cardiac interventions allowing pericardial fluid aspiration and tumour biopsy with experimental data on access to valvular apparatus. Herein, we provide a comprehensive review of the expanding paradigm of EUS-guided vascular interventions in GI bleeding, portal vein access and its related therapeutic interventions, cardiac access, and therapy. A synopsis of all the technical details involving each procedure and the available data has been tabulated, and the future trends in this area have been highlighted.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been an indispensable and widely used diagnostic tool in several medical fields, including gastroenterology, cardiology, and urology, due to its diverse therapeutic and diagnostic applications. Many studies show that it is effective and safe in patients with liver conditions where conventional endoscopy or cross-sectional imaging are inefficient or when surgical interventions pose high risks. In this article, we present a review of the current literature for the different diagnostic and therapeutic applications of EUS in liver diseases and their complications and discuss the potential future application of artificial intelligence analysis of EUS.

Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is a potentially fatal complication of clinically significant portal hypertension and is one of the most common causes of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Thus, esophagogastric varices represent a major economic and population health issue. Patients with advanced chronic liver disease typically undergo an upper endoscopy to screen for esophagogastric varices. However, upper endoscopy is not recommended for patients with liver stiffness < 20 KPa and platelet count > 150 × 109/L as there is a low probability of high-risk varices. Patients with high-risk varices should receive primary prophylaxis with either nonselective beta-blockers or endoscopic band ligation. In cases of AVB, patients should receive upper endoscopy within 12 h after resuscitation and hemodynamic stability, whereas endoscopy should be performed as soon as possible if patients are unstable. In cases of suspected variceal bleeding, starting vasoactive therapy as soon as possible in combination with endoscopic treatment is recommended. On the other hand, in cases of uncontrolled bleeding, balloon tamponade or self-expandable metal stents can be used as a bridge to more definitive therapy such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. This article aims to offer a comprehensive review of recommendations from international guidelines as well as recent updates on the management of esophagogastric varices.

Introduction: Esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) is a potentially fatal complication of cirrhosis. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel technique of balloon-occluded esophageal varices (EVs) obliteration (BEVO) for EVs classified as F2 (medium size, F2-EVs) and F3 (large size, F3-EVs). Materials and Methods: Between December 2020 and December 2021, a total of 73 consecutive patients with EVs were treated using BEVO. An injection of sclerosant was administered via direct puncture of the varices during balloon occlusion. Immediate postprocedural Doppler endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) was conducted to evaluate the blood flow in the EVs. Several factors, including the technical success, controlling of acute bleeding, intraoperative bleeding at the injection site, variceal eradication, variceal recurrence, and BEVO-related complications, were assessed. Results: BEVO was successfully performed in all patients. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 100% (25/25) of patients with active EVB. The incidence of injection site intraoperative bleeding presenting as oozing and spurting bleeding was 76.71% (56/73) and 8.22% (6/73), respectively. Based on Doppler EUS and endoscopic examination, EVs were completely eradicated in 71 out of 73 patients (97.26%) after three sessions. A total of 3 (4.11%) patients were diagnosed with EV recurrence during follow-up after complete EV eradication. Retrosternal chest discomfort (13.70%; 10/73) and abdominal bloating (2.74%; 2/73) were spontaneously relieved after a few days. No serious BEVO-related complications were observed. Discussion: BEVO is a convenient and effective treatment for obliterating F2 and F3 EVs. Clinical Trial Registration No. ChiCTR2000039974.

Therapeutic EUS has witnessed exponential growth in the last decade, but it has been considered investigational until recently. An increasing body of good-quality evidence is now demonstrating clear advantages over established alternatives, adding therapeutic EUS to management algorithms of complex hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) and gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. In this review, the available evidence and clinical role of therapeutic EUS in established and evolving applications will be discussed. A Graphical Summary for each scenario will provide (1) technical steps, (2) anatomical sketch, (3) best-supporting evidence, and (4) role in changing current and future GI practice. Therapeutic EUS has accepted well-established applications such as drainage of symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collections, biliary drainage in failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and treatment of acute cholecystitis in unfit-for-surgery patients. In addition, good-quality evidence on several emerging indications (e.g., treatment of gastric outlet obstruction, local ablation of pancreatic solid lesions, etc.) is promising. Specific emphasis will be given to how these technical innovations have changed management paradigms and algorithms and expanded the possibilities of gastroenterologists to provide therapeutic solutions to old and emerging clinical needs. Therapeutic EUS is cementing its role in everyday practice, radically changing the treatment of different HPB diseases and other conditions (e.g., GI obstruction). The development of dedicated accessories and increased training opportunities will expand the ability of gastroenterologists to deliver highly effective yet minimally invasive therapies, potentially translating into a better quality of life, especially for oncological and fragile patients.

Gastric varices (GV) with spontaneous portosystemic shunt (SPSS) are associated with ectopic embolism in endoscopic cyanoacrylate. This study targeted to assess the efficacy and safety of EUS-guided coil embolization combined with endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection versus balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for GV with high-risk ectopic embolism.

We retrospectively analyzed six tertiary hospitals' 104 patients with GV at high-risk ectopic embolism (the narrowest diameter of SPSS was greater than or equal to 5 mm and the maximum diameter usually >8 mm) who underwent EUS-guided coil embolization combined with endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or BRTO from January 2014 to December 2020. The outcomes included rebleeding, survival, and complications.

The EUS group and BRTO group contained 59 and 45 patients, respectively. The technical success rate between the two groups was similar (96.6% vs. 95.6%, P = 1.000). During the follow-up, both groups' 5-day rebleeding rate and 6-week mortality rate were 0%. One-year all-cause rebleeding rate (20.0% vs. 18.9%, P = 0.900) and 1-year mortality rate (2.0% vs. 0%, P = 1.000) in the EUS group were similar to the BRTO group. One patient experienced ectopic embolism in the EUS group, while the BRTO group did not. Both groups had similar mean days (16.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 12.0-19.0] vs. 16.5 [IQR, 11.8-26.0], P = 0.165) and cost of hospitalization (¥ 45950.6 [IQR, 39330.2-55768.2] vs. ¥ 51205.8 [IQR, 31628.8-74251.5], P = 0.680). Multivariate analysis showed that the narrowest diameter of the shunt (odds ratio [OR] = 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.062-3.258; P = 0.03) and content of hemoglobin (OR = 0.941; 95% CI: 0.892-0.992; P = 0.025) were the prognostic factors for survival.

The efficacy and safety of EUS-guided coil embolization combined with endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for GV with high-risk ectopic embolism are comparable to BRTO.

Ectopic embolism caused by cyanoacrylate glue for the treatment of gastric varices with obvious spontaneous portosystemic shunts is a serious complication of endoscopic therapy. This study was performed to investigate the safety and therapeutic effect of EUS-guided coil placement and cyanoacrylate glue injection for gastric varices with obvious spontaneous portosystemic shunts.

Six patients with gastric variceal bleeding and obvious spontaneous portosystemic shunts were included in this study. We evaluated the success rate of variceal occlusion after intraoperative embolization, the postoperative rebleeding rate at 48 h and 2 weeks posttreatment, and the incidence of ectopic embolism and other adverse events. Gastroscopy and computed tomography portal venography (CTPV) were performed 7 months later.

All patients underwent successful coil placement and cyanoacrylate glue injection under EUS guidance. The blood flow was confirmed by Doppler examination, the target vessels were successfully blocked, and no rebleeding had occurred at 48 h or 2 weeks after endoscopic treatment. Gastroscopy was repeated 7 months after endoscopic treatment, revealing local ulcer formation. CTPV was also repeated 7 months after endoscopic treatment, showing that the coils were present in the target vessels with no displacement, the portosystemic shunt vessels were occluded, and no ectopic embolization had occurred.

The coil placement combined with cyanoacrylate glue embolism is a safe and effective method for patients with gastric variceal bleeding and obvious spontaneous portosystemic shunts.

Gastric varices (GV) are present in 25% of cirrhotic patients with high rates of rebleeding and mortality. Data on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatment in severe liver disease (model for end stage liver disease sodium [MELD-Na] >18 and Child-Turcotte-Pugh [CTP] C with GV) are scarce. Thus, we performed a retrospective comparison of endoscopic glue injection with EUS-guided therapy in cirrhotic patients with large GV.

A retrospective study was performed in the tertiary hospitals of India. A total of 80 patients were recruited. The inclusion criteria were gastroesophageal varices type 2, isolated gastric varices type 1, bleeding within 6 weeks, size of GV >10 mm, and a MELD-Na >18. Treatment outcomes and complications of endoscopic glue injection and EUS-guided GV therapy were compared.

In this study, the patients' age, sex, liver disease severity (CTP, MELD-Na) and clinical parameters were comparable. The median number of procedures, injected glue volume, complications, and GV obturation were better in the EUS group, respectively. On subgroup analysis of the EUS method (e.g., direct gastric fundus vs. paragastric collateral [PGC] coil placement), PGC coil placement showed decreased coil requirement, less injected glue volume, decreased luminal coil extrusion, and increased successful GV obturation.

EUS-guided treatment is more efficient and safer, and requires a smaller number of treatment sessions, as compared to endoscopic treatment in severe liver disease patients with large GV. Furthermore, PGC coil placement increases the complete obliteration of GV.

Gastric varices (GV) represent a common and severe complication in patients with portal hypertension, commonly seen in patients with cirrhosis and severe pancreatic disease. Endoscopic ultrasonography is a safe and efficacious approach that can perform real-time ultrasonic scanning and intervention for the gastrointestinal submucosa, portal vein and its tributaries, and collateral circulations during direct endoscopic observation. Recently, various studies have been published about endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided management of GV, mainly including diagnosis, treatment, and prognostic analysis. This article reviews published articles and guidelines to present the development process and current management of EUS-guided GV procedures.

EUS has become an increasingly used diagnostic and therapeutic modality in the armamentarium of endoscopists. With ever-expanding indications, EUS is being used in patients with liver disease, for both diagnosis and therapy. EUS is playing an important role in providing additional important information to that provided by cross-sectional imaging modalities such as computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Domains of therapy that were largely restricted to interventional radiologists have become accessible to endosonologists. From liver biopsy and sampling of liver lesions to ablative therapy for liver lesions and vascular interventions for varices, there is increased use of EUS in patients with liver disease. In this review, we discuss the various diagnostic and therapeutic applications of EUS in patients with various liver diseases.

Chronic liver disease is still a major problem because disease progression will ultimately lead to liver cirrhosis. Portal hypertension is the hallmark in advanced liver disease management. By establishing portal vein access, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been utilized in various clinical applications. In comparison to standard upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, EUS-Doppler has been shown to be a better modality for detecting esophageal and gastric varices along with peri-esophageal collateral veins, para-esophageal collateral veins, and perforating veins, and may be used to objectively predict the recurrence of bleeding. EUS-guided portal vein catheterization has also been proposed to overcome the limitations of trans-jugular approaches. The combination of EUS-elastography and azygos vein evaluation can also enhance the diagnostic accuracy of each modality. Another well-known implementation of EUS-guided procedures is in the management of ascites; particularly in paracentesis and ascitic fluid analysis. In addition, the most common clinical application of EUS in the treatment of portal hypertension is through vascular therapy or creation of intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. Major drawbacks of EUS mainly revolve around technical difficulties, the high cost of the procedure, as well as the requirement of more studies in humans to evaluate EUS-guided advanced therapeutic modalities in portal hypertension.

Left-sided portal hypertension (LSPH), also known as sinistral portal hypertension or regional portal hypertension, refers to extrahepatic portal hypertension caused by splenic vein obstruction or stenosis. N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (NBC) has been widely used in the endoscopic hemostasis of portal hypertension, but adverse events including renal or pulmonary thromboembolism, mucosal necrosis and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding may occur after treatment. Herein, we report successfully managing gastric variceal (GV) hemorrhage secondary to LSPH using modified endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided selective NBC injections.

A 35-year-old man was referred to our hospital due to an upper GI hemorrhage. Gastroscopy revealed GV hemorrhage and computed tomography venography (CTV) confirmed LSPH. The patient requested endoscopic procedures and rejected surgical therapies including splenectomy. EUS-guided selective NBC injections were performed and confluences of gastric varices were selected as the injection sites to reduce the injection dose. The "sandwich" method using undiluted NBC and hypertonic glucose was applied. No complications occurred. The patient was followed up regularly after discharge. Three months later, the follow-up gastroscopy revealed firm gastric submucosa with no sign of NBC expulsion and the follow-up CTV showed improvements in LSPH. No recurrent GI hemorrhage was reported during this follow-up period.

EUS-guided selective NBC injection may represent an effective and economical treatment for GV hemorrhage in patients with LSPH.