Objective To investigate the current status of endoscopic treatment for gastroesophageal varices in portal hypertension in China, and to provide supporting data and reference for the development of endoscopic treatment. Methods In this study, initiated by the Liver Health Consortium in China (CHESS), a questionnaire was designed and distributed online to investigate the basic condition of endoscopic treatment for gastroesophageal varices in portal hypertension in 2022 in China. Questions included annual number and indication of endoscopic procedures, adherence to guideline for preventing esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB), management and timing of emergent EGVB, management of gastric and isolated varices, and improvement of endoscopic treatment. Proportions of hospitals concerning therapeutic choices to all participant hospitals were calculated. Guideline adherence between secondary and tertiary hospitals were compared by using Chi-square test. Results A total of 836 hospitals from 31 provinces (anotomous regions and municipalities) participated in the survey. According to the survey, the control of acute EGVB (49.3%, 412/836) and the prevention of recurrent bleeding (38.3%, 320/836) were major indications of endoscopic treatment. For primary [non-selective β-blocker (NSBB) or endoscopic therapies] and secondary prophylaxis (NSBB and endoscopic therapies) of EGVB, adherence to domestic guideline was 72.5% (606/836) and 39.2% (328/836), respectively. There were significant differences in the adherence between secondary and tertiary hospitals in primary prophylaxis of EGVB [71.0% (495/697) VS 79.9% (111/139), χ2=4.11, P=0.033] and secondary prophylaxis of EGVB [41.6% (290/697) VS 27.3% (38/139), χ2=9.31, P=0.002]. A total of 78.2% (654/836) hospitals preferred endoscopic therapies treating acute EGVB, and endoscopic therapy was more likely to be the first choice for treating acute EGVB in tertiary hospitals (82.6%, 576/697) than secondary hospitals [56.1% (78/139), χ2=46.33, P<0.001]. The optimal timing was usually within 12 hours (48.5%, 317/654) and 12-24 hours (36.9%, 241/654) after the bleeding. Regarding the management of gastroesophageal varices type 2 and isolated gastric varices type 1, most hospitals used cyanoacrylate injection in combination with sclerotherapy [48.2% (403/836) and 29.9% (250/836), respectively], but substantial proportions of hospitals preferred clip-assisted therapies [12.4% (104/836) and 26.4% (221/836), respectively]. Improving the skills of endoscopic doctors (84.2%, 704/836), and enhancing the precision of pre-procedure evaluation and quality of multidisciplinary team (78.9%, 660/836) were considered urgent needs in the development of endoscopic treatment. Conclusion A variety of endoscopic treatments for gastroesophageal varices in portal hypertension are implemented nationwide. Participant hospitals are active to perform emergent endoscopy for acute EGVB, but are inadequate in following recommendations regarding primary and secondary prophylaxis of EGVB. Moreover, the selection of endoscopic procedures for gastric varices differs greatly among hospitals.