GAVE
PHG
Portal hypertension (PHTN)
Physiologic changes
Increased antral area halftime [12]
Decreased systemic vascular resistance in patients with cirrhosis and PHG compared with patients with cirrhosis and no PHG [3]
Implicated mediators
GAVE
Unlike PHG, the pathogenesis of GAVE is not related to PHTN. Multiple studies have found that GAVE does not respond to TIPS [1, 6]. In the study by Kamath et al., 89 % of patients with mild PHG and 71 % of patients with severe PHG responded 6 months after TIPS procedure compared to 12.5 % of patients with GAVE [1]. In two case reports by Vincent et al., both patients had portal vein thrombosis and underwent liver transplant with end-to-end portocaval anastomosis and both patients had resolution of GAVE despite continued PHTN [7]. Taken together, these findings show a lack of response of GAVE to normalization of portal pressure after TIPS, and a positive response of GAVE to liver transplant despite continued PHTN. Several potential mediators have been implicated in the pathogenesis of GAVE. Early studies by Quintero et al. and Gostout et al. noted hypergasteremia in patients with GAVE [8, 9], but a later study by Payen et al. found reduced gastrin levels when patients with GAVE were compared to patients with severe PHTN and normal controls [10]. Saperas et al. found that prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) levels were significantly higher in the antrum and corpus of cirrhotic patients with GAVE compared to patients with cirrhosis without GAVE [11]. PGE2 is a potent vasodilator and may give a potential mechanism to the development of the ectatic capillaries noted in GAVE. Examination of antral motility revealed a significant increase in the antral area halftime in patients with cirrhosis and GAVE when compared to normal controls and patient with cirrhosis and no GAVE [12]. This has led to the hypothesis that the lesions in GAVE might be due to recurrent trauma, but this is yet to be definitively proven.
Diagnosis
In the majority of cases, the diagnosis can be made by endoscopic appearance. However, severe PHG can appear similar to GAVE at endoscopy. In these patients, histology can lead to diagnosis. Examples of the histology and endoscopic appearance are given in Fig. 12.1. Summary of the key histologic and endoscopic findings are provided in Table 12.2.
Fig. 12.1
Histology of PHG and GAVE, and endoscopy images. Histology of PHG and GAVE:. a PHG (arrow—capillarydilation). b GAVE (star—fibrin thrombi in ecactic vessel). Endoscopy images. c Mild PHG. d Classic “watermelon” GAVE. e Severe PHG. f Diffuse GAVE (histology images were kindly provided by Dr. Arief Suriawinata, Department of Pathology, Dartmouth–Hitchock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH. Endoscopic images were kindly provided by Dr. Louis M. Wong Kee Song, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN). PHG portal hypertensive gastropathy, GAVE gastric antral vascular ectasia
Table 12.2
Summary of the key components in the diagnosis of GAVE and PHG
GAVE | PHG | |
---|---|---|
Location | Antrum, limited to stomach | Fundus, similar lesions throughout GI tract |
Endoscopic appearance | Flat red spots without background mosaic pattern, can blur together causing stripes into the pylorus (watermelon stomach) or be diffuse (honeycomb stomach) | Snake-skin mosaic pattern (mild) with flat or bulging red spots (severe) |
Histology | Marked dilation of capillaries and venules in gastric mucosa and submucosa with areas of intimal thickening and thrombi, spindle cell proliferation, fibrohyalinosis [10] | Mild-to-moderate dilation of veins and capillaries of gastric mucosa and submucosa. No changes in vessel walls [4 ] |
PHG
At endoscopy, the lesions from PHG are found in the fundus of the stomach, but similar lesions can be seen throughout the gastrointestinal tract. Mild PHG has the appearance of a snake-skin mosaic pattern with severe PHG appearing flat or as bulging red spots. There are multiple different classification systems based on endoscopic appearance which are outlined in Table 12.3 with the North Italian Endoscopic Club (NIEC) classification being most commonly used. On histology, there is mild-to-moderate dilation of the veins and capillaries of the gastric mucosa and submucosa and no changes in the blood vessel wall [4].
Classification | New Italian Endoscopic Club (NIEC) for the study and treatment of esophageal varices | McComack et al. | Tanoue et al. |
---|---|---|---|
Mild | “Mosaic-like pattern”—diffusely pink areola (mild), flat red spot in the center of pink areola (moderate), diffusely red areola (severe) | Fine speckling or “scarlatina” type of rash, superficial reddening, “snake-skin” pattern | Mild reddening, congestive mucosa |
Moderate | N/A | N/A | Severe redness and fine reticular pattern separating areas of raised mucosa |
Severe | “Red marks”—red lesions of variable diameter, flat or slightly protruding. Discrete or confluent | Cherry red spots, confluent or not, diffuse hemorrhage | Grade plus point bleeding |
GAVE
GAVE is typically noted in the antrum of the stomach on endoscopy and is limited to the stomach. The lesions of GAVE appear as flat red spots without the background mosaic pattern that is seen in PHG. The red spots can merge causing stripes into the pylorus, which has led to the term “watermelon stomach.” The histology is characterized by marked dilation of capillaries and venules in the gastric mucosa, submucosa with areas of intimal thickening, spindle cell proliferation, fibrohyalinosis, and thrombi [4, 10]. The features of the histologic appearance of GAVE are used in the GAVE score (Table 12.4) which has an 80 % diagnostic accuracy in separating GAVE from PHG with a cutoff of GAVE score ≥ 3 [10].
Score | Fibrin thrombi and/or vascularectasia | Spindle cell proliferation | Fibrohyalinosis |
---|---|---|---|
0 | Both absent | Absent | Absent |
1 | One present | Increased | Present |
2 | Both present | Marked increase |
Management
The focus of management for both PHG and GAVE is maintaining adequate hemoglobin and reducing the number of blood transfusions required. Therefore, if either PHG or GAVE is noted at endoscopy in patients maintaining a normal hemoglobin, no therapy is required. Summary of the management of PHG and GAVE is given in Table 12.5.
Table 12.5
Summary of management of GAVE and PHG
GAVE | PHG | |
---|---|---|
Asymptomatic (normal hemoglobin, not receiving iron or transfusions) | No therapy | No therapy |
Chronic bleeding | ||
Acute bleeding | Endoscopic therapy | |
Rescue therapy | Antrectomy | TIPS, portocaval shunt |
PHG
In patients with chronic bleeding, the first-line therapy is iron replacement. If iron therapy is not sufficient to maintain the hemoglobin, further treatments are necessary with the initial goal of lowering the portal pressure in patients with chronic bleeding. Nonselective beta-blockers have been used for medical therapy with studies finding the most benefit in patients with mild PHG [14] with only modest effects noted in patients with severe PHG [15]. In patients who do not respond to medical therapy, TIPS procedure may be considered. In a study by Kamath et al., 75 % of patients with severe PHG showed improvement after TIPS as measured by improvement on endoscopic appearance and a decrease in transfusion requirement [1]. Improvement post TIPS procedure was noted as early as 2 weeks based on stabilization of hemoglobin and decreased transfusion requirements [1].
Acute bleeding can rarely occur from PHG; one large study found an incidence of 2.5 % for acute bleeding from PHG compared to 10.8 % for chronic bleeding [16]. Acute bleeding from PHG is managed similarly to variceal bleeding, with initial management consisting of appropriate resuscitation and antibiotic coverage. The main goal of medical therapy in acute bleeding is the reduction of the portal pressure. Agents that have been described in the literature include somatostatin [17], vasopressin [18], octreotide [19], and terlipressin [20]. In severe cases of acute bleeding, TIPS or surgical shunt may be necessary for management. For patients who fail medical therapy and who are not surgical candidates, there is evidence that endoscopic therapy with argon plasma coagulation (APC) could be an alternative therapy [21]. In a prospective trial by Herrera et al., APC therapy was examined in 29 patients admitted for upper gastrointestinal bleeding, with 11 patients having an underlying diagnosis of PHG. Herrera et al. found that APC was a successful therapy in 81 % patients with APC with success defined as no further episode of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and an increase of hemoglobin by 30 % or an increase in hematocrit of 10 %. In this study, the average number of sessions of APC required was 2.2 for patients with PHG and the average follow-up was 23.1 months [21]. One small case series of four patients examined the use of hemospray, a hemostatic agent licensed for endoscopic hemostasis in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in Europe and Canada [22]. The rationale for the use of hemospray was that it would allow for the treatment of a large area and in this study hemostasis was achieved in all four patients; However, one patient passed away from a perforated viscous and subsequent sepsis indicating the need for caution [22].