PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15703670

Esophageal bleeding disorders.

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Esophageal varices and Mallory Weiss syndrome are the two major esophageal bleeding disorders. Although there have been major breakthroughs in the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding, the management of esophageal bleeding disorders remains a challenging problem. This review focuses on studies published in the previous 12 months that provide further understanding of the appropriate treatment of various esophageal bleeding disorders. Other uncommon causes of esophageal bleeding are also discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: With the advances in endoscopic and pharmacologic treatments, mortality resulting from variceal hemorrhage has been substantially reduced. Band ligation is the first-line endoscopic treatment of esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Vasoactive agents such as somatostatin analog and terlipressin are both safe and effective pharmacologic treatments of esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Use of a nonselective beta-blocker is still the most widely accepted treatment for both primary and secondary prophylaxis. However, the effectiveness of beta-blockers is limited by intolerance and nonresponders in a significant proportion of patients. Thus, endoscopic band ligation is used increasingly as an alternative strategy for primary prophylaxis. A transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt should be reserved as rescue therapy for failure of medical and endoscopic treatments. In recent years, noninvasive surrogate markers have been reported to identify high-risk patients with large esophageal varices. Platelet count, spleen diameter, and their ratio are accurate predictors of esophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis. The endosonographic measurement of the cross-sectional surface area predicts the risk of variceal hemorrhage. For Mallory Weiss syndrome, endoscopic clipping is an emerging treatment modality, especially for deep laceration with risk of perforation. SUMMARY: A combination of various clinical, laboratory, and endosonographic parameters accurately predicts the risk of variceal hemorrhage. A streamlined screening strategy allows more cost-effective use of endoscopy and prompt prophylactic treatment for high-risk esophageal varices.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Justin C Y Wu, Francis K L Chan. 2004. Esophageal bleeding disorders.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001574-200407000-00015

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗