Endoscopic variceal ligation for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleed: preliminary report of a randomized controlled trial

Portal pressure response to losartan compared with propranolol in patients with cirrhosis

OBJECTIVES

Losartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, has portal hypotensive effects. This study evaluates the effect of losartan on portal pressure after 14 days and compares it with that of propranolol.

METHODS

A total of 39 individuals with cirrhosis were randomized into two groups of 19 and 20 patients each and were treated with losartan and propranolol, respectively. Hepatic venous pressure gradient was measured at baseline and on day 14 of therapy. Responders to therapy had hepatic venous pressure gradient reduction of >/=20% of baseline value.

RESULTS

With losartan, 15 of 19 (78.94%) patients were responders and with propranolol, nine of 20 (45%) patients were responders (p < 0.05). Although the hepatic venous pressure gradient reduction (i.e., percentage from baseline) with losartan (26.74 +/- 21.7%) was higher than with propranolol (14.52 +/- 32%), the difference was not significant. The reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient with losartan was contributed mainly by a significant drop of wedge hepatic venous pressure from 32.42 +/- 6.61 mm of Hg to 28.31 +/- 5.09 mm of Hg (p < 0.05) compared to that with propranolol, which was from 34.55 +/- 5.41 mm of Hg to 32.75 +/- 8.13 mm of Hg (p > 0.05). Responders among alcohol-abusing patients were significantly higher with losartan (81.8%) compared to those on propranolol (27.2%; p < 0.05). In the losartan group, all seven nonascitic cirrhotic individuals, as compared with two of five in the propranolol group, responded to the drugs. During the study, no significant side effects were observed in either group (who were not receiving diuretics) or in follow-up with diuretics.

CONCLUSIONS

Losartan is as effective as propranolol in reducing portal pressure in cirrhotic patients who are not receiving diuretics. Losartan is also superior to propranolol for achieving target level hepatic venous gradient for prevention of variceal bleeding in nonascitic and alcohol-abusing cirrhotic patients.

Propranolol plus placebo versus propranolol plus isosorbide-5-mononitrate in the prevention of a first variceal bleed: a double-blind RCT

Nonselective beta-blockers are very effective in preventing first variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. Treatment with isosorbide-5-mononitrate (IS-MN) plus propranolol achieves a greater reduction in portal pressure than propranolol alone. The present multicenter, prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial evaluated whether combined drug therapy could be more effective than propranolol alone in preventing variceal bleeding. A total of 349 consecutive cirrhotic patients with gastroesophageal varices were randomized to receive propranolol + placebo (n = 174) or propranolol + IS-MN (n = 175). There were no significant differences in the 1- and 2-year actuarial probability of variceal bleeding between the 2 groups (propranolol + placebo, 8.3% and 10.6%; propranolol + IS-MN, 5% and 12.5%). The only independent predictor of variceal bleeding was a variceal size greater than 5 mm. However, among patients with varices greater than 5 mm (n = 196), there were no significant differences in the incidence of variceal bleeding between the 2 groups. Survival was also similar. Adverse effects were significantly more frequent in the propranolol + IS-MN group due to a greater incidence of headache. There were no significant differences in the incidence of new-onset or worsening ascites or in impairment of renal function. In conclusion, propranolol effectively prevents variceal bleeding. Adding IS-MN does not further decrease the low residual risk of bleeding in patients receiving propranolol. However, the long-term use of this combination drug therapy is safe and may be an alternative in clinical conditions associated with a greater risk of bleeding.

Endoscopic screening for esophageal varices in cirrhosis: Is it ever cost effective?

Current guidelines for the management of patients with compensated cirrhosis recommend universal screening endoscopy followed by prophylactic beta-blocker therapy to prevent initial hemorrhage in those found to have esophageal varices. However, the cost-effectiveness of this recommendation has not been established. Our objective was to determine whether screening endoscopy is cost-effective compared with empiric medical management in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Decision analysis with Markov modeling was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of 6 competing strategies: (1) universal screening endoscopy (EGD) followed by beta-blocker (BB) therapy (EGD-->BB) if varices are present, (2) EGD followed by endoscopic band ligation (EBL) (EGD-->EBL) if varices are present, (3) selective screening endoscopy (sEGD) in high risk patients followed by BB therapy if varices are present (sEGD-->BB), (4) selective screening endoscopy followed by EBL (sEGD-->EBL) if varices are present, (5) empiric beta-blocker therapy in all patients, and (6) no prophylactic therapy ("Do Nothing"). Cost estimates were from a third-party payer perspective. The main outcome measure was the cost per initial variceal hemorrhage prevented. The "Do Nothing" strategy was the least expensive yet least effective approach. Compared with the "Do Nothing" strategy, the empiric beta-blocker strategy cost an incremental $12,408 per additional variceal bleed prevented. Compared with the empiric beta-blocker strategy, in turn, both the EGD-->BB and the EGD-->EBL strategies cost over $175,000 more per additional bleed prevented. The sEGD-->BB and sEGD-->EBL strategies were more expensive and less effective than the empiric beta-blocker strategy. In conclusion, empiric beta-blocker therapy for the primary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage is a cost-effective measure, as the use of screening endoscopy to guide therapy adds significant cost with only marginal increase in effectiveness.

Primary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage: a randomized controlled trial comparing band ligation, propranolol, and isosorbide mononitrate

BACKGROUND & AIMS

This randomized controlled trial compared variceal band ligation (VBL), propranolol (PPL), and isosorbide-5-mononitrate (ISMN) in the prevention of first esophageal variceal bleed.

METHODS

Over a 6-year period, 172 patients with cirrhosis, grade II or III esophageal varices that had never bled, were recruited; 44 into VBL, 66 into PPL, and 62 into ISMN. Baseline patient characteristics: age, 55 +/- 11 years; Child-Pugh score, 8 +/- 2; 65% alcohol-induced cirrhosis; follow-up period, 19.7 +/- 17.6 months (range, 0.13-72.1 months), were comparable in the 3 groups.

RESULTS

On intention-to-treat analysis, variceal bleeding occurred in 7% of patients randomized to VBL, 14% to PPL, and 23% to ISMN. The 2-year actuarial risks for first variceal bleed were 6.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0%-15.0%) for VBL, 19.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-32.4%) for PPL, and 27.7% (95% CI, 14.2%-41.2%) for ISMN. A significant number of patients reported side effects with drug treatment (45% PPL and 42% ISMN vs. 2% VBL; P = 0.00), resulting in withdrawal from treatment in 30% of PPL and 21% of ISMN patients. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality rates in the 3 groups. In as-treated analysis, there was a statistically significant difference in actuarial risk for bleeding at 2 years between VBL and ISMN (7.5%, 95% CI, 2.5%-10.6% vs. 33.0%, 95% CI, 15%-49%, respectively, log rank test P = 0.03) but not between VBL and PPL.

CONCLUSIONS

VBL was equivalent to PPL and superior to ISMN in preventing first variceal bleed. The side-effect profile for pharmacotherapy was considerable.

Acute and 7-day portal pressure response to carvedilol and propranolol in cirrhotics

BACKGROUND

Carvedilol, a non-selective beta- and alpha-1 blocking agent, has portal hypotensive action. This study evaluates the acute and 7-day response to carvedilol, and compares it to that of propranolol.

METHODS

Thirty-six cirrhotics were randomized into two groups of 18 each, and treated with carvedilol or propranolol. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) was measured before and 90 min after either 25 mg carvedilol or 80 mg propranolol was administered orally, and again 7 days after 12.5 mg carvedilol daily or 80 mg propranolol daily, respectively. 'Responders' were defined as those with HVPG reduction of > or = 20%.

RESULTS

With carvedilol, 11/18(61.1%) and 11/17(64.7%) patients responded acutely and after 7 days, respectively, while 9/18(50%) and 10/16(62.5%) did so to propranolol. However, HVPG reduction (percent) by carvedilol was not superior to that by propranolol either acutely (27.67 +/- 31.49 compared to 22.98 +/- 27.40, P = 0.6) or after 7 days (28.2 +/- 29.05 compared to 23.25 +/- 20.15, P = 0.6). With carvedilol, the acute HVPG response (P < 0.001) and responder status (P = 0.018) were good predictors of the response after 7 days, but were weak predictors in the case of propranolol (0.1 > P > 0.05 and P = 0.059, respectively). On carvedilol, only one patient (with ascites) developed symptomatic systemic hypotension with oliguria.

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol is a relatively safe, effective portal hypotensive agent, both acutely and over 7 days, but not superior to propranolol, at least in Indians. The acute hemodynamic response seems promising in predicting long-term response.

Review article: a drug therapy for the prevention of variceal haemorrhage

The development of varices is a major complication of cirrhosis, and variceal haemorrhage has a high mortality. There have been major advances in the primary and secondary prevention of variceal haemorrhage over the last 20 years involving endoscopic, radiological and pharmacological approaches. This review concentrates principally on drug therapy, particularly on the numerous haemodynamic studies. Many of these drugs have not been studied in clinical trials, but provide data about the underlying pathogenesis of portal hypertension. Also covered in this review are the randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses that involve a large number of patients. These trials involve relatively few drugs such as non-selective beta-blockers and nitrates. Correlations between haemodynamic and clinical parameters are discussed. Despite the recent increase in the use of alternative endoscopic therapies, an effective and well tolerated drug remains a clinically important research goal.

Variceal bleeding and portal hypertensive gastropathy

Cirrhosis can be the end stage of any chronic liver disease. At the time of diagnosis of cirrhosis varices are present in about 60% of decompensated and 30% of compensated patients. The risk factors for the first episode of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients are the severity of liver dysfunction, large size of varices and the presence of endoscopic red colour signs but only one-third of patients who have variceal haemorrhage have the above risk factors. Recent interest has been directed at identifying haemodynamic factors that may reflect the pathophysiological changes which lead to variceal bleeding, e.g. it has been confirmed that no bleeding occurs if HVPG falls below 12 mmHg and also a hypothesis has been put forward in which bacterial infection is considered a trigger for bleeding. Pharmacological treatment with beta-blockers is safe, effective and is the standard long-term treatment for the prevention of recurrence of variceal bleeding. Combination of beta-blockers with isosorbide-5-mononitrate needs further testing in randomized controlled trials. The use of haemodynamic targets for reduction in HVPG response needs further study, and surrogate markers of pressure response need evaluation. If endoscopic treatment is chosen, variceal ligation is the modality of choice. The combination of simultaneous variceal ligation and sclerotherapy does not offer any benefit. However, the use of additional sclerotherapy for the complete eradication of small varices after variceal ligation needs to be evaluated. The results of current prospective randomized controlled trials comparing variceal ligation with pharmacological treatment are awaited with great interest. Finally, the use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for the secondary prevention of variceal bleeding is not substantiated by current data, as survival is not improved and because of its worse cost-benefit profile compared to other treatments. In contrast, there still is a role for the selective surgical shunts in the modern management of portal hypertension. The ideal patients should be well compensated cirrhotics, who have had troublesome bleeding - either who have failed at least one other modality of therapy (drugs or ligation), have bled from gastric varices despite medical or endoscopic therapy, or live far from suitable medical services. Recently, ligation has been compared to beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis but so far there is no good evidence to recommend banding for primary prophylaxis, if beta-blockers can be given.

Review article: primary prophylaxis for portal hypertensive bleeding in cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is a consequence of portal hypertension, which in turn is the major complication of hepatic cirrhosis. Given the high rate of mortality of the first bleeding episode, primary prophylaxis to prevent bleeding from varices and portal hypertensive gastropathy is the current optimal therapeutic approach. The difficulty in identification of patients with varices who will bleed, before they do so, can justify a strategy of treating all patients with varices prophylactically. We evaluated the various therapies that have been assessed in randomized controlled trials for prevention of first bleeding, using meta-analysis where applicable. The current first choice treatment is non-selective beta-blockers; it is cheap, easy to administer, and is effective in preventing the first variceal haemorrhage and bleeding from gastric mucosa. Combination drug therapy of beta-blockers and nitrates looks promising, but needs further evaluation in randomized controlled trials. The conflicting results of the randomized studies of endoscopic banding ligation and the small number of patients and clinical events, as well as the cost, do not warrant any change in current practice. However, endoscopic banding ligation may be a reasonable alternative for patients who cannot tolerate, or have contraindications to beta-blockers or no haemodynamic response to the drug therapy, but this must be proved in randomized trials.

Drug treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices

At the time of diagnosis of cirrhosis, varices are present in about 60% of decompensated and 30% of compensated patients. The risk factors for the first episode of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients are the severity of liver dysfunction, a large size of the varices and the presence of endoscopic red colour signs, but only a third of patients who suffer variceal haemorrhage demonstrate the above risk factors. The only treatment that does not require sophisticated equipment or the skills of a specialist, and is immediately available, is vasoactive drug therapy. Hence, drug therapy should be considered to be the initial treatment of choice and can be administered while the patient is transferred to hospital, as has been done in one recent study. Moreover, drug therapy is no longer considered to be only a 'stop-gap' therapy until definitive endoscopic therapy is performed. Several recent trials have reported an efficacy similar to that of emergency sclerotherapy in the control of variceal bleeding. Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that those patients with high variceal or portal pressure are likely to continue to bleed or re-bleed early, implying that prolonged therapy lowering the portal pressure over several days may be the optimal treatment. Pharmacological treatment with beta-blockers is safe, effective and the standard long-term treatment for the prevention of recurrence of variceal bleeding. The combination of beta-blockers with isosorbide-5-mononitrate needs further testing in randomized controlled trials. The use of haemodynamic targets for the reduction of the HVPG response needs further study, and surrogate markers of the pressure response need evaluation. Ligation has recently been compared with beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis, but there is as yet no good evidence to recommend banding for primary prophylaxis if beta-blockers can be given.

Esophageal varices. I. Clinical presentation, medical therapy, and endoscopic therapy

The last half century has witnessed great advances in the understanding of the pathogenesis and natural history of portal hypertension in cirrhotics. Several pharmacologic and endoscopic techniques have been developed for the treatment of portal hypertension. The use of these agents in a given patient must be based on an understanding of the stage in the natural history of the disease and the relative efficacy and safety of the available treatment options.