2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.02.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Role of EUS evaluation after endoscopic eradication of esophageal varices with band ligation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
29
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
1
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In our study the mean of congestion index in bleeder group 0.26 ± 0.06 (cm × sec) which was highly significant higher than 0.16 ± 0.02 (cm × sec) in non-bleeder group this may be close related to Abdel Eslam et al, who found that the congestion index of mean portal vein was significantly higher in bleeders 0.26 ± 0.08 (cm × sec) than in patients who have not yet bled 0.18 ± 0.06 (cm × sec) [28]. and also, close related to Wahib et al, who reported that congestion index of subgroup suffered from recurrent bleeding was 0.22 ± 0.02 (cm × sec) was highly significant higher than those of patients did not suffer from recurrent bleeding 0.12 ± 0.01 (cm × sec) [29].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In our study the mean of congestion index in bleeder group 0.26 ± 0.06 (cm × sec) which was highly significant higher than 0.16 ± 0.02 (cm × sec) in non-bleeder group this may be close related to Abdel Eslam et al, who found that the congestion index of mean portal vein was significantly higher in bleeders 0.26 ± 0.08 (cm × sec) than in patients who have not yet bled 0.18 ± 0.06 (cm × sec) [28]. and also, close related to Wahib et al, who reported that congestion index of subgroup suffered from recurrent bleeding was 0.22 ± 0.02 (cm × sec) was highly significant higher than those of patients did not suffer from recurrent bleeding 0.12 ± 0.01 (cm × sec) [29].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Although in our study when we choose the same cutoff limit 0.16 (cm × sec) the sensitivity is 100% and specificity 64%. However, choose a cutoff limit (0.13 cm ×s) in discriminating bleeders group from non-bleeders group, so the sensitivity was (10%) only, specificity was 13% [28].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The presence of larger para-ECV-a variceal diameter of 6.3 mm before EVL and 4 mm after EVL-predicted variceal recurrence. 22 In another study, high Child-Pugh score, peri-ECVs, and PFVs were independent risk factors related to esophageal varices recurrence. 23 Higher hepatofugal flow velocity in the left gastric vein likely contributes to variceal recurrence after endoscopic treatment.…”
Section: Treatment Of Esophageal Varicesmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Carneiro et al. specifically found that a para‐esophageal diameter of greater than 4 mm after EV eradication had a sensitivity of 71% and specificity of 85% for predicting EV recurrence . These parameters can therefore be useful in surveillance for EV.…”
Section: Eus and Esophageal Varicesmentioning
confidence: 99%