A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of the Ease and Safety of Variceal Ligation Using a Multiband vs. a Conventional Ligation Device

Background and Study Aims: Recent advances in endoscopic technology have led to the development of multiple-banding devices which avoid the use of an overtube in endoscopic variceal ligation. In the present study we prospectively examined the safety and efficacy of one such device compared with the conventional single-band ligator.

Patients and Methods: A total of 45 patients undergoing band ligation were randomly assigned to receive ligation using conventional techniques (n = 22), or multiband ligation (n = 23).

Results: The use of the multiband device was associated with a significant reduction in sedation requirements (midazolam 7.1 mg vs. 9.9 mg, P < 0,01, multiband vs. conventional, respectively), less discomfort (4 % vs. 23 % severe discomfort, P < 0.05). The total time of the endoscopic session was reduced in the multiband group (8 minutes 25 seconds vs. 12 minutes 21 seconds, P < 0.01), as was the time required for application of all the bands (2 minutes 22 seconds vs. 5 minutes 34 seconds, P < 0.001), and average time taken per individual band application (36 seconds vs. 1 minute 36 secs, P < 0.01). In three patients who underwent ligation using the conventional method, the procedure was stopped because of trauma secondary to overtube application.

Conclusions: Multiband ligation is safer, quicker, and associated with less patient discomfort and morbidity when compared with conventional ligation.

References

• 1 Laine L. Ligation: endoscopic treatment of choice for patients with bleeding esophageal varices (editorial)?.  Hepatology. 1995;  22 663-665
• 2 Stiegmann G V, Goff J S, Michaletz-Onody P A, et al. Endoscopic sclerotherapy as compared with endoscopic ligation for bleeding esophageal varices.  N Engl J Med. 1992;  326 1527-1532
• 3 Gimson A E, Ramage J K, Panos M Z, et al. Randomised trial of variceal banding ligation versus injection sclerotherapy for bleeding oesophageal varices (see comments).  Lancet. 1993;  342 391-394
• 4 Hou M C, Lin H C, Kuo B I, et al. Comparison of endoscopic variceal injection sclerotherapy and ligation for the treatment of esophageal variceal hemorrhage: a prospective randomized trial.  Hepatology. 1995;  21 1517-1522
• 5 Laine L, Cook D. Endoscopic ligation compared with sclerotherapy for treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding: A meta-analysis.  Ann Intern Med. 1995;  123 280-287
• 6 Holderman W H, Etzkorn K P, Patel S A, et al. Endoscopic findings and overtube-related complications associated with esophageal variceal ligation.  J Clin Gastroenterol. 1995;  21 91-94
• 7 Hoepffner N, Foerster E, Menzel J, et al. Severe complications arising from oesophageal varix ligation with the Stiegmann-Goff set.  Endoscopy. 1995;  27 345
• 8 Hou M C, Lin H C, Chang F Y, et al. Oesophageal perforation following endoscopic variceal ligation and balloon tamponade.  J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1994;  9 659-662
• 9 Minoli G. Esophageal perforation and variceal banding (letter).  Endoscopy. 1994;  26 633
• 10 Schoonbroodt D, Zipf A, Jung M. Local necrosis and fatal perforation of oesophagus after endoscopic ligation (letter).  Lancet. 1994;  344 1365
• 11 Johnson P A, Campbell D R, Antonson C W, et al. Complications associated with endoscopic band ligation of esophageal varices.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1993;  39 181-185
• 12 Saeed Z A. The Saeed Six-Shooter: a prospective study of a new endoscopic multiple rubber-band ligator for the treatment of varices.  Endoscopy. 1996;  28 559-564
• 13 Dennert B, Ramirez F C, Sanowski R A. A prospective evaluation of the spectrum of overtube-related esophageal mucosal injury.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;  45 134-137
• 14 Goldschmiedt M, Haber G, Kandel G, et al. A safety maneuver for placing overtubes during endoscopic variceal ligation (letter).  Gastrointest Endosc. 1992;  38 399-400