What Are the Clinical Features and Etiology of Eosinophilic Liver Infiltration?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Although eosinophilic liver infiltration (ELI) is not rare, few data exist regarding its clinical characteristics and etiology. Therefore, we evaluated these aspects to better understand the clinical implications of this lesion type, which is reasonably common in Korea. METHODS: Patients suspected of having ELI, based on abdominal computed tomography results obtained between January 2010 and September 2017, were enrolled in this retrospective study. The presumptive etiologies of ELI were categorized as parasite infections, hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), malignancies, and unidentified. Clinical courses and treatment responses were also evaluated. RESULTS: The mean age of the enrolled patients (male, 237/328) was 62 years. Most patients (63%) were diagnosed incidentally and had peripheral eosinophilia (90%). Only 38% of the enrolled patients (n=126) underwent further evaluations to elucidate the etiology of the suspected ELI; 82 (25%) had parasite infections, 31 (9%) had HES, five (2%) had EGPA, and five (2%) had drug reactions in conjunction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms. Almost half of the other enrolled patients had cancer. Radiologic resolution was achieved in 191 patients (61%; median time to radiologic resolution, 185 days). Resolution of peripheral eosinophilia was achieved in 220 patients (79%). In most cases, the course of ELI was benign. CONCLUSIONS: This large ELI study is unique in that the incidence rate, underlying diseases, and clinical courses were comprehensively evaluated. Clinicians should investigate the etiology of ELI, as several of the underlying diseases require intervention rather than observation.

Risk Factors and On-site Rescue Treatments for Endoscopic Variceal Ligation Failure / 대한소화기학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The success rate of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is about 85–94%. There is only a few studies attempting to determine the cause of EVL failure, and to date, on-site rescue treatments remains unestablished. This study aimed to elucidate the risk factors for EVL failure and the effectiveness of on-site rescue treatment. METHODS: Data of 454 patients who underwent emergency EVL at Chonnam National University Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Enrolled patients were divided into two groups: the EVL success and EVL failure groups. EVL failures were defined as inability to ligate the varices due to poor endoscopic visual field, or failure of hemostasis after band ligation for the culprit lesion. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients experienced EVL failure. In the multivariate analysis, male patients, initial hypovolemic shock, active bleeding on endoscopy, and history of previous EVL were independent risk factors for EVL failure. During endoscopic procedure, we came across the common causes of EVL failure, including unsuctioned varix due to previous EVL-induced scars followed by insufficient ligation of the stigmata and inability to ligate the varix due to poor endoscopic visual field. Endoscopic variceal obturation using N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (48.9%) was the most commonly used on-site rescue treatment method, followed by insertion of Sangstaken Blakemore tube (14.9%), and EVL retrial (12.8%). The rescue treatments successfully achieved hemostasis in 91.7% of those in the EVL failure group. CONCLUSIONS: The risk factors of EVL failure should be considered before performing EVL, and in case of such scenario, on-site rescue treatment is needed.

Endoscopic Ultrasonographic Characteristics of Gastric Schwannoma Distinguished from Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor / 대한소화기학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Gastric schwannoma (GS), a rare neurogenic mesenchymal tumor, is usually benign, slow-growing, and asymptomatic. However, GS is often misdiagnosed as gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) on endoscopic and radiological examinations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate EUS characteristics of GS distinguished from GIST. METHODS: A total of 119 gastric subepithelial lesions, including 31 GSs and 88 GISTs, who were histologically identified and underwent EUS, were enrolled in this study. We evaluated the EUS characteristics, including location, size, gross morphology, mucosal lesion, layer of origin, border, echogenic pattern, marginal halo, and presence of an internal echoic lesion by retrospective review of the medical records. RESULTS: GS patients comprised nine males and 22 females, indicating female predominance. In the gross morphology according to Yamada's classification, type I was predominant in GS and type III was predominant in GIST. In location, GSs were predominantly located in the gastric body and GISTs were predominantly located in the cardia or fundus. The frequency of 4th layer origin and isoechogenicity as compared to the echogenicity of proper muscle layer was significantly more common in GS than GIST. Although not statistically significant, marginal halo was more frequent in GS than GIST. The presence of an internal echoic lesion was significantly more common in GIST than GS. CONCLUSIONS: The EUS characteristics, including tumor location, gross morphology, layer of origin, echogenicity in comparison with the normal muscle layer, and presence of an internal echoic lesion may be useful in distinguishing between GS and GIST.