View clinical trials related to Esophageal Varices.
Filter by:Liver cirrhosis is a common diffuse and persistent liver disease often accompanied by portal hypertension, liver failure, upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), and other complications. The incidence rate of liver cirrhosis with UGIB is as high as 30-40%, which is related to the rupture bleeding of gastroesophageal varices (GOV), hepatogenic ulcer, portal hypertensive gastropathy, hepatic gastrointestinal failure, etc
Primary Outcomes: assessment of incidence , risk factors and prognosis of post-banding ulcer bleeding following EVL in patients with liver cirrhosis. Secondary Outcomes: minimize post-banding ulcer bleeding
The goal of this clinical trial is to compare the safeness and effectiveness of traditional esophagogastroduodenoscope (EGD) and wired magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy (MACE) in the diagnosis of esophageal varices in biliary atresia (BA) patients. The main questions it aims to answer are: - Subjects who do wired magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy do not need to open the mouths during the process, this study also want to know whether wired magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy can reduce the generation of droplets. - Diagnostic accuracy between traditional esophagogastroduodenoscope and wired magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy in biliary atresia patients with esophageal varices. Participants will do either traditional esophagogastroduodenoscope or wired magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy.
The aim of this study is to use non-invasive methods to identify patients at risk of developing gastrointestinal varices and correlation of these non-invasive methods with the degree of esophageal varices and the presence or absence of risk signs of bleeding such as cherry red spots.
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is defined as accumulation of fat in the liver which is not related to either alcohol excess or other causes such viral infection, immune-mediated, or medication related which can lead to fibrosis and later-on, cirrhosis. Over the last years NAFLD related liver cirrhosis has become the commonest cause of chronic liver disease worldwide. Portal hypertension is the major complication caused by increased splanchnic blood flow which leads to development of oesophageal varices (OV). Almost all of the patients with portal hypertension can develop OV sometime in their life and one third of those will bleed, hence identifying the presence of OV is a an important aspect of diagnostic workup of these patients with portal hypertension. Upper digestive camera test/endoscopy is the only means to diagnose and grade OV but endoscopy is an invasive procedure and its cost effectiveness for screening is also questionable. These limitations and the ever-increasing workload on endoscopy units has led many researchers to identify some parameters that can non-invasively diagnose OV. Researchers have proposed use of platelet count/spleen diameter ratio, liver stiffness on Fibroscan among many non-invasive tools to predict OV in patients with portal hypertension with success. Recently criteria proposed in Baveno VI conference, (Baveno-IV Criteria) recommended that screening endoscopy can be avoided in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) with liver stiffness measurement (LSM) less than 20 kPa and a platelet count more than than 150,000/μL with an expanded Baveno-IV criteria suggesting platelet count >110 × 109 cells/L and LSM <25 kPa can spare even more endoscopies with a risk of missing varices needing treatment (VNT) being minimal.
The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of 2-days versus 5-days octreotide infusion after endoscopic therapy in preventing early esophageal varices rebleed in patients with cirrhosis.
Optimal time for follow up after variceal band ligation in cirrhotic patients remains to be determined
Carvedilol versus endoscopic band ligation for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with arterial hypertension
Variceal bleeding is a major complication of cirrhosis, associated with a hospital mortality rate of 10%-20%. Surviving patients are at high risk for recurrent hemorrhage. For these reasons, management should be directed at its prevention. Endoscopic variceal band ligation (EBL) in combination with non-selective β-blocker (NSBB) therapy is the recommended first line therapy. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt (TIPS) is the most effective method to prevent rebleeding, however, it is burdened with increased hepatic encephalopathy and deterioration of liver function in patients with advanced cirrhosis. So TIPS placement forms an alternative if first line therapy fails. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is currently the best available method to evaluate the presence and severity of portal hypertension. Patients who experience a reduction in HVPG of ≥20% or to <12mmHg in response to drug therapy are defined as 'responders'. The lowest rebleeding rates are observed in patients on secondary prophylaxis who are HVPG responders. A recent meta-analysis has demonstrated that combination therapy is only marginally more effective than drug therapy. This suggests that pharmacological therapy is the cornerstone of combination therapy. Adding EBL may not be the optimal approach to improve the outcome of HVPG nonresponders and HVPG non-responders are a special high-risk population that may benefit from a more aggressive approach, such as an early decision for TIPS. It recently was shown that TIPS placement within 72 hours after acute bleeding not only prevented recurrent bleeding but also improved survival. These raise the question of whether ligation together with NSBB should remain the first choice for elective secondary prophylaxis. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to compare whether HVPG-guided therapy is superior to standard combination therapy for the prevention of variceal bleeding in patients with decompensated cirrhosis.
We will include patients with EV and EVB. They will be randomized to EVL vs. NSBB for primary prevention And EVL+long-term NSBB vs. EVL+short-term NSBB for secondary prevention. 150 patients will be included in a 3-year period. Primary end-points are formation/progression of ascites, acute kidney injury and survival. The other outcomes such as bleeding, rebleeding, infection and other risk factors will be also analyzed.