Human thrombin for the treatment of gastric and ectopic varices

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of human thrombin in the treatment of bleeding gastric and ectopic varices. METHODS: Retrospective observational study in a Tertiary Referral Centre. Between January 1999-October 2005, we identified 37 patients who were endoscopically treated with human thrombin injection therapy for bleeding gastric and ectopic varices. Patient details including age, gender and aetiology of liver disease/segmental portal hypertension were documented. The thrombin was obtained from the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service and prepared to give a solution of 250 IU/mL which was injected via a standard injection needle. All patient case notes were reviewed and the total dose of thrombin given along with the number of endoscopy sessions was recorded. Initial haemostasis rates, rebleeding rates and mortality were catalogued along with the incidence of any immediate complications which could be attributable to the thrombin therapy. The duration of follow up was also listed. The study was conducted according to the United Kingdom research ethics guidelines. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were included. 33 patients (89%) had thrombin (250 U/mL) for gastric varices, 2 (5.4%) for duodenal varices, 1 for rectal varices and 1 for gastric and rectal varices. (1) Gastric varices, an average of 15.2 mL of thrombin was used per patient. Re-bleeding occurred in 4 patients (10.8%), managed in 2 by a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPSS) (one unsuccessfully who died) and in other 2 by a distal splenorenal shunt; (2) Duodenal varices (or type 2 isolated gastric varices), an average of 12.5 mL was used per patient over 2-3 endoscopy sessions. Re-bleeding occurred in one patient, which was treated by TIPSS; and (3) Rectal varices, an average of 18.3 mL was used per patient over 3 endoscopy sessions. No re-bleeding occurred in this group. CONCLUSION: Human thrombin is a safe, easy to use and effective therapeutic option to control haemorrhage from gastric and ectopic varices

Update of endoscopy in liver disease:More than just treating varices

The management of complications in liver disease is often complex and challenging. Endoscopy has undergone a period of rapid expansion with numerous novel and specialized endoscopic modalities that are of increasing value in the investigation and management of the patient with liver disease. In this review, relevant literature search and expert opinions have been used to provide a brief overview and update of the current endoscopic management of patients with liver disease and portal hypertension. The main areas covered are safety of endoscopy in patients with liver disease, the use of standard endoscopy for the treatment of varices and the role of new endoscopic modalities such as endoscopic ultrasound, esophageal capsule, argon plasma coagulation, spyglass and endomicroscopy in the investigation and treatment of liver-related gastrointestinal and biliary pathology. It is clear that the role of the endoscopy in liver disease is well beyond that of just treating varices. As the technology in endoscopy expands, so does the role of the endoscopist in liver disease. (C) 2012 Baishideng. All rights reserved.</p

Considering adult living donor liver transplantation: a qualitative study of patients and their potential donors

In April 2006, the Scottish Liver Transplant Unit became the first NHS transplant unit in the UK to offer adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT). However, within the first 21 months of its availability, no patients on the transplant waiting list had pursued this treatment option. A qualitative interview study was devised to elicit the views of patients and their families with regards to LDLT. Interviews were conducted with 21 patients and 20 potential donors. The main reason why recipients did not pursue LDLT was their perception of risk to their donor. The anticipated feelings of guilt if the donor was harmed, resulted in LDLT being rejected. However, despite this many recipients would possibly consider LDLT as a “last option”. For donors, considering becoming a donor was an automatic response, driven by their need to help their loved one survive. However, consideration of the effects of donating upon their own immediate family often superseded their wish to donate. Whilst donors need to be given time to consider the implications of LDLT upon their own lives, it is essential that recipients understand that LDLT cannot be a last option, in order to allow them to reconsider their options realistically