Procedure-related complications in gastric variceal obturation with tissue glue.

AIM: To focus on procedure-related complications, evaluate their incidence, analyze the reasons and discuss the solutions. METHODS: Overall, 628 endoscopic gastric variceal obturation (EGVO) procedures (case-times) with NBC were performed in 519 patients in the Department of Endoscopy of the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University from January 2011 to December 2016. The clinical data of patients and procedure-related complications of EGVO were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: In the 628 EGVO procedures, sticking of the needle to the varix occurred in 9 cases (1.43%), including 1 case that used lipiodol-diluted NBC and 8 cases that used undiluted NBC (P = 0.000). The needle was successfully withdrawn in 8 cases. Large spurt bleeding occurred in one case, and hemostasis was achieved by two other injections of undiluted glue. The injection catheter became blocked in 17 cases (2.71%) just during the injection, and 4 cases were complicated with the needle sticking to the varix. Large glue adhesion to the endoscope resulted in difficulty withdrawing the endoscope in 1 case. Bleeding from multiple sites was observed in the esophagus and gastric cardia after the endoscope was withdrawn. Hemostasis was achieved by 1% aethoxysklerol injection and intravenous somatostatin. The ligation device stuck to the varices in two cases during the subsequent endoscopic variceal ligation. In one case, the ligation device was successfully separated from the esophageal varix after all bands were released. In another case, a laceration of the vein and massive bleeding were observed. The bleeding ceased after 1% aethoxysklerol injection. CONCLUSION: Although EGVO with tissue glue is usually safe and effective, a series of complications can occur during the procedure that may puzzle endoscopists. There is no standard operating procedure for addressing these complications. The cases described in the current study can provide some reference for others.

Diagnosis of eosinophilic gastroenteritis is easily missed.

AIM: To analyze the clinical characteristics of eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EGE) and to investigate the situations of missed diagnosis of EGE. METHODS: First, the clinical characteristics of 20 EGE patients who were treated at our hospital were retrospectively summarized. Second, 159 patients who underwent gastroscopy and 211 patients who underwent colonoscopy were enrolled. The pathological diagnosis showed only chronic inflammation in their medical records. The biopsy slides of these patients were reevaluated to determine the number of infiltrating eosinophils in order to assess the probability of a missed diagnosis of EGE. Finally, 122 patients who experienced refractory upper gastrointestinal symptoms for at least one month were recruited. At least 6 biopsy specimens were obtained by gastroscopy, and the number of eosinophils that had infiltrated was evaluated. Those who met the pathological diagnostic criteria of EGE underwent further examination to confirm the diagnosis of EGE. The probability of a missed diagnosis of EGE was prospectively investigated. RESULTS: Among the 20 patients with EGE, mucosal EGE was found in 15 patients, muscular EGE was found in 3 patients and serosal EGE was found in 2 patients. Abdominal pain was the most common symptom. The number of peripheral blood eosinophils was elevated in all 20 patients, all of whom were sensitive to corticosteroids. Second, among the 159 patients who underwent gastroscopy, 7 (4.40%) patients met the criteria for pathological EGE (eosinophil count ≥ 25/HPF). Among the 211 patients who underwent colonoscopy, 9 (4.27%) patients met the criteria for pathological EGE (eosinophil count ≥ 30/HPF). No patients with eosinophil infiltration were diagnosed with EGE in clinical practice before or after endoscopy. Although these patients did not undergo further examination to exclude other diseases that can also lead to gastrointestinal eosinophil infiltration, these might be the cases where the diagnosis of EGE was missed. Finally, among the 122 patients with refractory upper gastrointestinal symptoms, eosinophil infiltration was seen in 7 patients (5.74%). The diagnosis of EGE was confirmed in all 7 patients after the exclusion of other diseases that can also lead to gastrointestinal eosinophil infiltration. A positive correlation was observed between the duration of the symptoms and the risk of EGE (r = 0.18, P < 0.01). The patients whose symptoms persisted longer than 6 mo more readily developed EGE. None of the patients were considered to have EGE by their physicians before endoscopy. CONCLUSION: Although EGE is a rare inflammatory disorder, it is easily misdiagnosed. When a long history of abdominal symptoms fails to improve after conventional therapy, EGE should be considered.