Technical and clinical outcomes following EUS-guided thrombin injection and coil implantation for parastomal varices

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Bleeding from parastomal varices causes significant morbidity and mortality. Treatment options are limited, particularly in high-risk patients with significant underlying liver disease and other comorbidities. The use of EUS-guided embolisation coils combined with thrombin injection in gastric varices has been shown to be safe and effective. Our institution has applied the same technique to the treatment of parastomal varices.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of 37 procedures on 24 patients to assess efficacy and safety of EUS-guided injection of thrombin, with or without embolisation coils for treatment of bleeding parastomal varices. All patients had been discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting, and correction of portal hypertension was deemed to be contraindicated. Rebleeding was defined as stomal bleeding that required hospital admission or transfusion.

RESULTS

All patients had significant parastomal bleeding at the time of referral. 100% technical success rate was achieved. 70.8% of patients had no further significant bleeding in the follow-up period (median 26.2 months) following one procedure. 1-year rebleed-free survival was 80.8% following first procedure. 7 patients (29.1%) had repeat procedures. There was no significant difference in rebleed-free survival following repeat procedures. Higher age was associated with higher risk of rebleeding. No major procedure-related complications were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided thrombin injection, with or without embolisation coils, is a safe and effective technique for the treatment of bleeding parastomal varices, particularly for patients for whom correction of portal venous hypertension is contraindicated.

Guidance document: risk assessment of patients with cirrhosis prior to elective non-hepatic surgery

As a result of the increasing incidence of cirrhosis in the UK, more patients with chronic liver disease are being considered for elective non-hepatic surgery. A historical reluctance to offer surgery to such patients stems from general perceptions of poor postoperative outcomes. While this is true for those with decompensated cirrhosis, selected patients with compensated early-stage cirrhosis can have good outcomes after careful risk assessment. Well-recognised risks include those of general anaesthesia, bleeding, infections, impaired wound healing, acute kidney injury and cardiovascular compromise. Intra-abdominal or cardiothoracic surgery are particularly high-risk interventions. Clinical assessment supplemented by blood tests, imaging, liver stiffness measurement, endoscopy and assessment of portal pressure (derived from the hepatic venous pressure gradient) can facilitate risk stratification. Traditional prognostic scoring systems including the Child-Turcotte-Pugh and Model for End-stage Liver Disease are helpful but may overestimate surgical risk. Specific prognostic scores like Mayo Risk Score, VOCAL-Penn and ADOPT-LC can add precision to risk assessment. Measures to mitigate risk include careful management of varices, nutritional optimisation and where possible addressing any ongoing aetiological drivers such as alcohol consumption. The role of portal decompression such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting can be considered in selected high-risk patients, but further prospective study of this approach is required. It is of paramount importance that patients are discussed in a multidisciplinary forum, and that patients are carefully counselled about potential risks and benefits.

Covered transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt vs large volume paracentesis in patients with cirrhosis: A real-world propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Refractory ascites has a 1-year survival rate of 50%. In selected patients, treatment options include liver transplantation (LT) or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPSS).

AIM

To assess the outcomes of patients who underwent a TIPSS compared to large volume paracentesis (LVP).

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients who underwent a covered TIPSS or LVP for refractory or recurrent ascites over 7 years. Primary outcome was transplant-free survival (TFS). Further analysis was done with propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

There were 150 patients [TIPSS group (n = 75), LVP group (n = 75)]. Seven patients in the TIPSS group underwent LT vs 22 patients in the LVP group. Overall median follow up, 20 (0.47-179.53) mo. In the whole cohort, there was no difference in TFS [hazard ratio (HR): 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.54-1.21]; but lower de novo hepatic encephalopathy with LVP (HR: 95%CI: 0.20-0.96). These findings were confirmed following PSM analysis. On multivariate analysis albumin and hepatocellular carcinoma at baseline were associated with TFS.

CONCLUSION

Covered TIPSS results in similar TFS compared to LVP in cirrhotic patients with advanced liver failure. Liver transplant assessment should be considered in all potential candidates for TIPSS. Further controlled studies are recommended to select appropriate patients for TIPSS.

Recent advances in the management of variceal bleeding

Acute haemorrhage from ruptured gastroesophageal varices is perhaps the most serious consequence of uncontrolled portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients. It represents a medical emergency and is associated with a high morbidity and mortality. In those who survive the initial bleeding event, the risks of further bleeding and other decompensated events remain high. The past 30 years have seen a slow evolution of management strategies that have greatly improved the chances of surviving a variceal haemorrhage. Liver cirrhosis is a multi-staged pathological process and we are moving away from a one-size-fits-all therapeutic approach. Instead there is an increasing recognition that a more nuanced approach will yield optimal survival for patients. This approach seeks to risk stratify patients according to their disease stage. The exact type and timing of treatment offered can then be varied to suit individual patients. At the same time, the toolbox of available therapy is expanding and there is a continual stream of emerging evidence to support the use of endoscopic and pharmacological therapies. In this review, we present a summary of the treatment options for a variety of different clinical scenarios and for when there is failure to control bleeding. We have conducted a detailed literature review and presented up-to-date evidence from either primary randomized–controlled trials or meta-analyses that support current treatment algorithms.

Non-selective beta-blockers in cirrhosis: Current concepts and controversies

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) have been at the forefront in the management of portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis for the last three decades, a trusty component in the armamentarium of the Hepatologist. The role of beta-blockers has been cemented for years in cardiac disease including angina, hypertension and in heart failure, however NSBBs with their non-selective effects on β1 and β2 receptors have led to them fondly being termed “the hepatologist’s aspirin”. NSBBs’ role in reduction of portal pressure in the setting of primary and secondary prophylaxis for variceal haemorrhage has been well established. NSBBs include propranolol, nadolol and carvedilol - with the latter having been shown to be effective in patients who often fail to demonstrate a haemodynamic response to propranolol. Recent observational studies however have served for the Hepatology community to question the beneficial role of NSBBs in portal hypertension, especially in advanced cases with refractory ascites. The deleterious effect in patients with refractory ascites in a few studies led to a U-turn in clinical practice, with some in the Hepatology community withdrawing their usage in patients with advanced cirrhosis. This also led to the “window hypothesis” suggesting there may be only be a finite time frame when NSBBs have a beneficial effect in portal hypertension. The window hypothesis proposed the window for the benefits of NSBBs is closed in early portal hypertension, opening as portal hypertension progresses with it closing in advanced liver disease. The window was proposed to close in conditions such as refractory ascites or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis when patients may not necessarily mount a compensatory haemodynamic response when on NSBBs. Some centres however have continued the practice of NSBBs in advanced cirrhosis with published data challenging the scepticisms of other groups who stop NSBBs. Thus the debate, like the window hypothesis has opened, with more questions to be answered about NSBB’s mechanism of action not only in reducing portal hypertension but also their effects on systemic haemodynamics and on the pro-inflammatory pathways often activated in cirrhosis especially in advanced disease. This article serves to review the role of NSBBs in the management of portal hypertension/cirrhosis and concentrate on current concepts and controversies in this field.

U.K. guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients

These updated guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage have been commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee (CSSC) of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the liver section of the BSG. The original guidelines which this document supersedes were written in 2000 and have undergone extensive revision by 13 members of the Guidelines Development Group (GDG). The GDG comprises elected members of the BSG liver section, representation from British Association for the Study of the Liver (BASL) and Liver QuEST, a nursing representative and a patient representative. The quality of evidence and grading of recommendations was appraised using the AGREE II tool.The nature of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients with its complex range of complications makes rigid guidelines inappropriate. These guidelines deal specifically with the management of varices in patients with cirrhosis under the following subheadings: (1) primary prophylaxis; (2) acute variceal haemorrhage; (3) secondary prophylaxis of variceal haemorrhage; and (4) gastric varices. They are not designed to deal with (1) the management of the underlying liver disease; (2) the management of variceal haemorrhage in children; or (3) variceal haemorrhage from other aetiological conditions.

Portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis: Controversies and latest developments

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is encountered in liver cirrhosis, particularly in advanced disease. It has been a feared complication of cirrhosis, attributed to significant worsening of liver disease, poorer clinical outcomes and potential inoperability at liver transplantation; also catastrophic events such as acute intestinal ischaemia. Optimal management of PVT has not yet been addressed in any consensus publication. We review current literature on PVT in cirrhosis; its prevalence, pathophysiology, diagnosis, impact on the natural history of cirrhosis and liver transplantation, and management. Studies were identified by a search strategy using MEDLINE and Google Scholar. The incidence of PVT increases with increasing severity of liver disease: less than 1% in well-compensated cirrhosis, 7.4%-16% in advanced cirrhosis. Prevalence in patients undergoing liver transplantation is 5%-16%. PVT frequently regresses instead of uniform thrombus progression. PVT is not associated with increased risk of mortality. Optimal management has not been addressed in any consensus publication. We propose areas for future research to address unresolved clinical questions.

Liver in cardiopulmonary disease

Hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) and portopulmonary hypertension (PoPH) are two fascinating and incompletely understood pulmonary vascular conditions seen in the setting of cirrhotic patients. Of the two HPS is more common and is primarily caused by pulmonary vasodilatation resulting in hypoxaemia and hyperdynamic circulation. PoPH is less common and conversely, pulmonary vasoconstriction and vascular remodelling occurs resulting in increased pulmonary vascular resistance. However, both conditions can co-exist and it is usually PoPH which develops in a patient with pre-existing HPS. Although these two pulmonary conditions are not common complications of chronic liver diseases, the treatment options are mainly limited to liver transplantation. Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy is closely related to haemodynamic changes in portal hypertension. The key features are normal cardiac pressures at rest, with reduced ability to compensate for physiological or iatrogenic stresses such as drug therapy or TIPSS. There is no effective therapy and outcomes after liver transplantation are variable.