Contents

Esophageal VaricesEdit

Esophageal varices are enlarged submucosal veins in the lower esophagus that arise as a consequence of sustained high pressure in the liver’s portal venous system. They occur most often in people with chronic liver disease and portal hypertension, and they carry a substantial risk of life-threatening bleeding if the veins rupture. The medical management of esophageal varices combines preventing first bleeding in high-risk patients with rapid, effective treatment if bleeding occurs, all within the framework of available health care resources and practices that emphasize cost-effectiveness and patient responsibility.

In the broader context of liver disease, esophageal varices illustrate how the body adapts to impaired liver function—forming collateral pathways to reroute blood flow when the portal system is under strain. This process is driven by portal hypertension (portal hypertension), a frequent companion of conditions such as cirrhosis and various forms of chronic liver injury. The management of varices is therefore tightly linked to the treatment of the underlying liver disease, the overall health of the patient, and the resources available to provide timely endoscopic evaluation, pharmacologic therapy, and, when needed, procedural interventions.

Pathophysiology

Esophageal varices develop when elevated pressure in the portal venous system forces blood to find alternative routes around the liver, creating dilated veins in the wall of the esophagus. Variceal size and morphology influence bleeding risk; larger varices and appearances such as red wale marks signal a higher likelihood of rupture. The primary mechanical goal of therapy is to reduce portal pressure or to directly prevent rupture, which can be accomplished with medications, endoscopic procedures, or, in more severe cases, interventional radiology.

Key anatomical and physiologic concepts involved include the gastroesophageal junction’s venous network, the liver’s architecture, and systemic responses to liver dysfunction. The result is a spectrum of variceal disease from silent collateral vessels detected on screening to acute bleeding requiring emergency care. For related concepts, see portal hypertension and cirrhosis.

Epidemiology

Among patients with chronic liver disease, esophageal varices are a common finding. The risk of a first variceal bleed varies with variceal size and the presence of signs suggesting rapid progression, but significant bleeding risk persists without prophylaxis in many high-risk patients. Mortality from an initial variceal hemorrhage has declined with modern resuscitation, antibiotic prophylaxis, and rapid endoscopic treatment, but remains a major concern in settings with limited access to care. The overlap with other complications of portal hypertension, such as ascites and splenomegaly, is frequent.

Clinical presentation

Most people with esophageal varices do not bleed initially. When bleeding occurs, it presents as sudden vomiting of blood (hematemesis) and sometimes black, tarry stools (melena), with signs of volume loss such as dizziness, rapid heart rate, low blood pressure, and fainting in severe cases. The bleeding is typically brisk and can be difficult to control without prompt medical intervention. In addition to bleeding, patients may show symptoms of underlying liver disease, such as jaundice, confusion from hepatic encephalopathy, or ascites.

Diagnosis

Diagnosis relies on direct visualization of the esophageal veins by endoscopy. Screening endoscopy is commonly performed in people with cirrhosis or other causes of portal hypertension to assess variceal grade and bleeding risk. Endoscopy is often paired with evaluation of gastric varices and other complications of portal hypertension. Noninvasive assessment, such as Doppler ultrasound of the portal system or imaging studies, can support staging and management decisions, but endoscopy remains the gold standard for detecting and characterizing varices. See endoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy for related procedures.

Management

Management is two-pronged: control of active bleeding and prevention of future bleeds.

  • Acute bleeding

    • Resuscitation and stabilization, with careful fluid and blood product administration to avoid over-correction of blood pressure and hematocrit.
    • Pharmacologic vasoactive therapy to reduce portal pressure, such as somatostatin analogs or other approved agents.
    • Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infections, which worsen outcomes in cirrhotic patients.
    • Emergent endoscopic intervention, most commonly endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) to mechanically obliterate varices, with alternative or adjunctive approaches if bleeding persists.
    • Temporary measures (e.g., balloon tamponade) are reserved for salvage situations when bleeding cannot be controlled promptly.
    • If bleeding remains refractory, interventional radiology procedures such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) may be considered to reduce portal pressure and rebleeding risk. See endoscopic variceal ligation and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.

  • Primary prophylaxis (preventing a first bleed)

    • Nonselective beta-blockers (e.g., propranolol or nadolol) reduce portal pressure and the risk of first bleed in patients with medium-to-large varices or small varices with high-risk features.
    • Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) can be used as an alternative or companion to pharmacologic therapy, particularly in patients intolerant of beta-blockers.
    • The choice between pharmacologic and endoscopic approaches depends on variceal size, patient tolerability, and overall liver function. See beta-blocker and endoscopic variceal ligation for related concepts.

  • Secondary prophylaxis (preventing rebleeding after a prior bleed)

    • A combination of EVL and nonselective beta-blockers is commonly recommended to reduce the risk of recurrent bleeding.
    • For those who fail first-line measures, TIPS or liver transplantation may be considered, balancing liver disease severity and overall prognosis. See liver transplantation and TIPS.

  • Long-term considerations

    • Management of underlying liver disease and risk factor modification (e.g., abstinence from alcohol for alcohol-related liver disease, vaccination against hepatitis viruses) is essential.
    • Regular surveillance endoscopy is often part of a strategy to monitor varices and adjust therapy as the disease evolves.

Controversies and debates

  • Screening strategies and resource use

    • A major policy and clinical debate centers on how aggressively to screen for varices in all patients with portal hypertension. A risk-based approach targets those most likely to benefit, while some guidelines support broader screening in order to catch varices before any bleed occurs. Proponents of selective screening emphasize cost-effectiveness and avoiding unnecessary procedures in low-risk patients, while critics argue that missed varices can lead to preventable hemorrhage.

  • Prophylaxis choices: NSBBs versus EVL

    • For primary prophylaxis, nonselective beta-blockers reduce portal pressure but can cause intolerable side effects for some patients. EVL provides a mechanical reduction in variceal size but requires repeated endoscopic procedures. The debate weighs long-term adherence, patient quality of life, procedure-related risks, and healthcare costs. Some guidelines advocate starting with NSBBs and reserving EVL for nonresponders, while others favor a more individualized approach based on risk, tolerance, and access to endoscopy.

  • Early TIPS versus surveillance

    • In high-risk patients (e.g., those with recurrent bleeding or poor liver reserve), early TIPS can lower recurrent bleeding and improve survival in selected groups. Critics warn about the risk of hepatic encephalopathy and the invasiveness of the procedure, making case-by-case decision-making essential. The balance involves liver function status, bleeding risk, and the likelihood of success with medical and endoscopic measures.

  • Access and equity considerations

    • Some critics argue that strict adherence to evidence-based, cost-conscious strategies can inadvertently limit access to timely, high-quality care for patients in under-resourced settings. Proponents of efficient, patient-centered care contend that guidelines should emphasize proven benefit and practical implementation, ensuring that patients receive needed procedures like EVL or TIPS without bureaucratic delays.

See also