4.5 Article

Band ligation of gastric antral vascular ectasia is a safe and effective endoscopic treatment

Journal

DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY
Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages 392-396

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2012.01410.x

Keywords

argon plasma coagulation (APC); endoscopic band ligation; gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE); watermelon stomach

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and AimGastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) or 'watermelon stomach' is a rare and often misdiagnosed cause of occult upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Treatment includes conservative measures such as transfusion and endoscopic therapy. A recent report suggests that endoscopic band ligation (EBL) offers an effective alternative treatment. The aim of the present study is to demonstrate our experiences with this novel technique, and to compare argon plasma coagulation (APC) with EBL in terms of safety and efficacy. MethodsA retrospective analysis of all endoscopies with a diagnosis of GAVE was carried out between 2004 and 2010. Case records were examined for information pertaining to the number of procedures carried out, mean blood transfusions, mean hemoglobin, and complications. ResultsA total of 23 cases of GAVE were treated. The mean age was 73.9 (55-89) years. Female to male ratio was 17:6 and mean follow up was 26 months. Eight patients were treated with EBL with a mean number of treatments of 2.5 (1-5). This resulted in a statistically significant improvement in the endoscopic appearance and a trend towards fewer transfusions. Of the eight patients treated with EBL, six (75%) patients had previously failed APC treatment despite having a mean of 4.7 sessions. Band ligation was not associated with any short- or medium-term complications. The 15 patients who had APC alone had a mean of four (1-11) treatments. Only seven (46.7%) of these patients had any endoscopic improvement with a mean of four sessions. ConclusionsEBL represents a safe and effective treatment for GAVE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available