Randomized study comparing banding and propranolol to prevent initial variceal hemorrhage in cirrhotics with high-risk esophageal varices

Randomized controlled trial of carvedilol versus variceal band ligation for the prevention of the first variceal bleed

Current therapy for preventing the first variceal bleed includes beta-blocker and variceal band ligation (VBL). VBL has lower bleeding rates, with no differences in survival, whereas beta-blocker therapy can be limited by side effects. Carvedilol, a non-cardioselective vasodilating beta-blocker, is more effective in reducing portal pressure than propranolol; however, there have been no clinical studies assessing the efficacy of carvedilol in primary prophylaxis. The goal of this study was to compare carvedilol and VBL for the prevention of the first variceal bleed in a randomized controlled multicenter trial. One hundred fifty-two cirrhotic patients from five different centers with grade II or larger esophageal varices were randomized to either carvedilol 12.5 mg once daily or VBL performed every 2 weeks until eradication using a multibander device. Seventy-seven patients were randomized to carvedilol and 75 to VBL. Baseline characteristics did not differ between the groups (alcoholic liver disease, 73%; median Child-Pugh score, 8; median age, 54 years; median follow-up, 20 months). On intention-to-treat analysis, carvedilol had lower rates of the first variceal bleed (10% versus 23%; relative hazard 0.41; 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.96 [P = 0.04]), with no significant differences in overall mortality (35% versus 37%, P = 0.71), and bleeding-related mortality (3% versus 1%, P = 0.26). Six patients in the VBL group bled as a result of banding ulcers. Per-protocol analysis revealed no significant differences in the outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol is effective in preventing the first variceal bleed. Carvedilol is an option for primary prophylaxis in patients with high-risk esophageal varices.

Care of the cirrhotic patient

Timely surveillance for varices and hepatocellular carcinoma, prophylaxis against spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) improve survival in patients awaiting transplantation. Early diagnosis of minimal or overt hepatic encephalopathy can delay life threatening complications, reduce need for hospitalization, and potentially improve survival pending liver transplantation.

Primary prophylaxis of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding: consensus recommendations of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver

The Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) set up a Working Party on Portal Hypertension in 2002, with a mandate to develop consensus guidelines on various clinical aspects of portal hypertension relevant to disease patterns and clinical practice in the Asia-Pacific region. Variceal bleeding is a consequence of portal hypertension, which, in turn, is the major complication of liver cirrhosis. Primary prophylaxis to prevent the first bleed from varices is one of the most important strategies for reducing the mortality in cirrhotic patients. Experts predominantly from the Asia-Pacific region were requested to identify the different aspects of primary prophylaxis and develop the consensus guidelines. The APASL Working Party on Portal Hypertension evaluated the various therapies that have been used for the prevention of first variceal bleeding. A 2-day meeting was held on January 12 and 13, 2007, at New Delhi, India, to discuss and finalize the consensus statements. Only those statements that were unanimously approved by the experts were accepted. These statements were circulated to all the experts and were subsequently presented at the annual conference of the APASL at Kyoto, Japan, in March 2007.

Management of chronic liver failure until liver transplantation

Chronic liver failure is an important cause of morbidity and mortality and is the long-term consequence of many chronic liver diseases. In addition to determining the specific cause of the chronic liver disease, which may be amenable to targeted therapy, it is important to treat the sequelae of chronic liver failure effectively to improve quality of life, to prolong survival, and to provide a bridge to liver transplantation. Once a patient who has chronic liver failure develops hepatic decompensation, liver transplantation is the definitive treatment for those who qualify. Management of chronic liver failure is the focus of this article.

The management of portal hypertension: rational basis, available treatments and future options

Variceal bleeding is the last step in a chain of events initiated by an increase in portal pressure, followed by the development and progressive dilation of varices until these finally rupture and bleed. This sequence of events might be prevented - and reversed - by achieving a sufficient decrease in portal pressure. A different approach is the use of local endoscopic treatments at the varices. This article reviews the rationale for the management of patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, the current recommendations for the prevention and treatment of variceal bleeding, and outlines the unsolved issues and the perspectives for the future opened by new research developments.

Portal hypertension: pre-primary and primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

In liver cirrhosis, variceal bleeding is the last in a chain of events initiated by the increase in portal pressure (estimated in clinical practice by the hepatic venous pressure gradient). When hepatic venous pressure gradient goes above 10 mmHg the patient is at risk of developing varices, and when hepatic venous pressure gradient reaches 12 mmHg variceal bleeding might develop. Currently, there is not any effective therapy for the prevention of the development of varices. When varices are small, beta-adrenergic blockers might prevent the enlargement of the varices, and may reduce the risk of variceal bleeding. In patients with medium to large varices, beta-blockers are clearly effective in reducing the risk of variceal bleeding. Endoscopic band ligation might be more effective than beta-blockers, but available evidence is still very weak.

A pilot project examining the predicted preferences of patients and physicians in the primary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and nonselective beta-blockers (hereafter just called beta-blockers) are both effective for primary prophylaxis for variceal hemorrhage; however, the route of administration and side effects of these treatments are distinct. The objective of this study was to examine predicted preferences of patients and physicians for the primary prevention of variceal hemorrhage. Untreated patients with newly diagnosed esophageal varices and practicing gastroenterologists were enrolled in this study. Patients with contraindications to either EVL or beta-blockers were excluded. Predicted preferences for treatment were evaluated with an interactive computer task designed to elicit subjects' trade-offs related to the route of administration, risk of fatigue, sexual dysfunction, dysphagia, shortness of breath and/or hypotension, procedure-related bleeding, and perforation. Fifty-three patients and 61 physicians were enrolled. Thirty-four (64%) patients and 35 (57%) physicians preferred EVL over beta-blockers. Patients' predicted preferences were most strongly influenced by the risks of shortness of breath or hypotension, fatigue, and procedure-related bleeding, whereas physicians placed greater importance on procedure-related bleeding, sexual dysfunction, and perforation. Forty-eight patients were prescribed beta-blockers, two were not given prophylaxis, and three were lost to follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Predicted treatment preferences among both patients and physicians for primary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage vary significantly. Physicians in this study preferring EVL stated that they prescribe beta-blockers as first-line therapy in order to remain compliant with guidelines. Physicians should discuss both EVL and beta-blockers with patients requiring primary prophylaxis for variceal hemorrhage. Future guidelines should incorporate individual patient preferences.

Banding ligation versus beta-blockers as primary prophylaxis in esophageal varices: systematic review of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare banding ligation versus beta-blockers as primary prophylaxis in patients with esophageal varices and no previous bleeding.

METHODS

Randomized trials were identified through electronic databases, reference lists in relevant articles, and correspondence with experts. Three authors extracted data. Random effects meta-analysis and metaregression were performed. The reported allocation sequence generation and concealment were extracted as measures of bias control.

RESULTS

The initial searches identified 1,174 references. Sixteen trials were included. In 15 trials, patients had high-risk varices. Three trials reported adequate bias control. All trials reported mortality for banding ligation (116/573 patients) and beta-blockers (115/594 patients). Mortality in the two treatment groups was not significantly different in the trials with adequate bias control (relative risk 1.22, 95% CI 0.84-1.78) or unclear bias control (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75-1.39). Trials with adequate bias control found no significant difference in bleeding rates (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55-1.35). Trials with unclear bias control found that banding ligation significantly reduced bleeding (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41-0.77). Both treatments were associated with adverse events. In metaregression analyses, the estimated effect of ligation was significantly more positive if trials were published as abstracts. Likewise, the shorter the follow-up, the more positive the estimated effect of ligation.

CONCLUSIONS

Banding ligation and beta-blockers may be used as primary prophylaxis in high-risk esophageal varices. The estimated effect of banding ligation in some trials may be biased and was associated with the duration of follow-up. Further high-quality trials are still needed.

Preventing first variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is still a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension responsible for an appreciable rate of morbidity and mortality. The most appropriate treatment approach, whether drugs (nonselective beta-blockers) or endoscopic (variceal band ligation) therapy, to prevent the initial bleed, or primary prophylaxis, is an issue of controversy. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials indicates that banding seems to be somehow slightly more effective than beta-blockers at preventing a first bleeding episode, but this does not translate to improved survival. The firmness of this conclusion is, in addition, diminished by the small sample size and short follow-up of most studies. Moreover, adverse events due to banding are more severe than those associated with beta-blockers. Thus, beta-blockers remain as first-line therapy in patients with cirrhosis and large esophageal varices. Prophylactic therapy with beta-blockers can be considered in patients with small varices, especially in those with red signs or Child class C liver disease. The available evidence does not support the idea that organic nitrates improve the efficacy of beta-blockers in primary prophylaxis. The method used to establish the dose of beta-blockers and check its effect on hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) has also been disputed. An attractive strategy is to measure the HVPG response to beta-blockers as a guide to primary prophylaxis, with the aim of switching to another therapy, that is, band ligation, in HVPG nonresponders. However, no study has yet demonstrated that banding as rescue therapy in nonresponders lowers the risk of first bleeding and improves survival.

The budget impact of endoscopic screening for esophageal varices in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of screening for esophageal varices in cirrhosis remains uncertain. Previous analyses found that screening with upper endoscopy (EGD) may not be cost effective versus empiric beta-blocker (BB) therapy. However, these models were conducted before advances in variceal screening, including capsule endoscopy (CE), and they did not measure the budget impact (vs cost-effectiveness) of variceal screening.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the managed care budget impact of variceal screening strategies.

DESIGN

Budget impact model.

SETTING

Hypothetical managed care organization with 1 million covered lives.

PATIENTS

Patients with compensated cirrhosis.

INTERVENTIONS

Compared 5 strategies: (1) empiric BB, (2) screening EGD followed by BB if varices present (EGD --> BB), (3) EGD followed by endoscopic band ligation if varices present (EGD --> EBL), (4) CE followed by BB if varices present (CE --> BB), and (5) CE followed by EBL if varices present (CE --> EBL).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

Per-member per-month cost.

RESULTS

BB was the least expensive, and CE --> EBL was the most expensive. Substituting CE --> BB in lieu of BB cost each member an additional $0.20 per month to subsidize. Compared with CE --> BB, both EGD-based strategies were more expensive. However, CE was not viable in managed care organizations capable of reducing the cost of endoscopy below $410, unless the cost of CE was reduced in lockstep.

LIMITATIONS

Data on CE remain limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening for varices may have an acceptable budget impact but is highly sensitive to local costs of EGD and CE. In managed care organizations willing to subsidize EBL for variceal prophylaxis, it is inefficient to screen with CE compared with EGD.

Variceal band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prevention of variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Variceal band ligation (VBL) can reduce the rate of the first variceal by 45-52% compared with beta-blockers (BBs). We performed an updated meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials published as full papers, comparing VBL with BB for primary prevention.

METHODS

Relative risk (RR) was computed using a random effects model. Sensitivity analysis was performed using a fixed effects model. Publication bias was also assessed using funnel plots and the rank correlation test.

RESULTS

In total, 734 patients were studied (356, VBL; 378, BB). The pooled RR favoured VBL for first variceal bleed [0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.43-0.92] with number needed to treat being 13 (95% CI, 7-33), and for adverse events resulting in treatment withdrawal (0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.47) with the corresponding number needed to treat being 10 (95% CI, 6-25). Banding-related bleeding occurred in six patients (fatal in two). No difference was seen in bleeding-related deaths (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.38-1.32), or overall mortality (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.86-1.38). No significant heterogeneity or publication bias was present, and outcomes remained robust after sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

VBL was superior to BB in preventing the first variceal bleed, with fewer adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation. Careful attention to technique and patient selection are important to minimize iatrogenic complications with VBL. VBL has a role in patients with poor drug compliance, or tolerance, and in those who bleed on BB therapy.

Emerging approaches in hepatocellular carcinoma

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is predicted to continue to increase over the next 30 years. Surgical intervention, including resection and orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is offered to a limited number of patients. Novel approaches to the treatment of patients with HCC are needed. This article aims to review emerging approaches in the care of the HCC patient including systemic treatment, selection of appropriate candidates for OLT, improved imaging to follow treatment response, and management pre-OLT and post-OLT.

A randomized study comparing ligation with propranolol for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in candidates for liver transplantation

Whether beta-blockers (BB) or banding is the best therapy for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding is subject to debate. A randomized comparison between the 2 treatments was performed in candidates for liver transplantation (LT). A total of 62 patients with Child-Turcotte-Pugh B-C cirrhosis and high risk varices received propranolol (31) or variceal banding (31). The primary endpoint was variceal bleeding. There were 2 variceal hemorrhages (6.5%) in the banding group, related to postbanding ulcers, and 3 (9.7%) in the propranolol group (P = not significant [n.s.]). Deaths and bleeding related deaths were 3 and 1 for banding and 3 and 2 for BB, respectively (P = n.s.). A total of 14 patients underwent LT in the banding group and 10 in the propranolol group (P = n.s.). Adverse events were 2 postbanding ulcer bleedings in ligated patients (1 fatal) and 5 were intolerant to propranolol (P = n.s.). Mean costs per patient were higher with banding than with propranolol treatment (4,289 +/- 285 vs. 1,425 +/- 460 U.S. dollars, P < 0.001). In conclusion, propranolol and banding are similarly effective in reducing the incidence of variceal bleeding in candidates for LT, but ligation can be complicated by fatal bleeding and is more expensive. Our results suggest that banding should not be utilized as primary prophylaxis in transplant candidates who can be treated with BB.

Validation of a multivariate model predicting presence and size of varices

BACKGROUND

A model developed by our group identified low platelets and advanced Child-Pugh class (CPC) as being associated with large varices.

GOALS

To validate a defined cut-off of platelets < or =80,000/microL in CPC-A for large varices and platelets < or =90,000/microL in CPC-B/C for any varices.

STUDY

Validation cohorts consisted of patients with cirrhosis undergoing screening for varices from Oregon Health and Science University (n=152), Indiana University (n=252), and Genoa, Italy (n=101). Similar clinical and laboratory data were collected as for the original cohort. To assess the ability of these cut-offs to predict presence of large and any varices, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, likelihood ratios, and the c-statistic were measured.

RESULTS

The validation cohorts were statistically different from the original cohort with regards to CPC and prevalence of large varices. Combining the original (n=301) and validation cohorts resulted in a negative predictive value of 92.1% for platelets < or =80,000/microL in CPC-A for large varices and positive predictive value of 80.1% for platelets < or =90,000/microL in CPC-B/C for any varices. Combining the 4 cohorts yielded a c-statistic of 0.67 (95% confidence interval: 063-0.72). No other factors such as splenomegaly and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score were identified as significant.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the validity of a previous model identifying low platelets and advanced CPC class as predictors of large varices. Despite combining the cohorts, no other risk factors were identified.

Diagnosis and management of cirrhosis in coinfected patients

HIV coinfection is associated with faster progression of liver disease resulting from hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Thus, liver complications have become a major cause of illness and death in coinfected patients. Controlling HIV through highly active antiretroviral therapy may slow disease progression to nearly the rate of HIV-negative persons. Several antiretroviral regimens have been associated with drug-induced liver injury, however, which is more common in patients coinfected with hepatitis B or C. After development of cirrhosis and decompensation, survival is shorter in coinfected patients. Diagnosis and management of cirrhosis should be the same for coinfected and monoinfected HBV/HCV patients. The main complications of cirrhosis are ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, bleeding esophageal varices, hepatic encephalopathy, the hepatorenal syndrome, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver transplantation is feasible in patients with HIV infection, and early evaluation for this option is crucial because of the accelerated course of complications in HIV coinfection.

Pretransplant management of the cirrhotic patient

Cirrhosis is the twelfth commonest cause of death in the United States, with more than 27,000 deaths and more than 421,000 hospitalizations annually. Currently, there are more than 17,000 patients awaiting liver transplantation in the United States across the 11 United Network for Organ Sharing regions. Approximately 10% of such patients will die awaiting transplantation.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of variceal ligation vs. beta-blockers for primary prevention of variceal bleeding

Although both beta-blockade (BB) and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) are used for primary prevention of variceal bleeding (VB) in patients with cirrhosis with moderate to large esophageal varices (EVs), the more cost-effective option is uncertain. We created a Markov decision model to compare BB and EVL in such patients, examining both cost-effectiveness (cost per life year [LY]) and cost-utility (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]). Outcomes included cost per LY, cost per QALY, proportions of persons with VB, TIPS, and all-cause mortality. EVL and BB were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). When considering only LYs, initial EVL exceeds the benchmark of 50,000 dollars/LY, with an ICER of 98,407 dollars. However, when quality of life (QoL) is considered, EVL is cost-effective compared to BB (ICUR of 25,548 dollars/QALY). In sensitivity analysis, EVL is cost-effective if the yearly risk of EV bleeding is > or = 0.26 (base case 0.15), the relative risk of bleeding on BB is > or = 0.69 (base case 0.58), or if the relative risk of bleeding with EVL is < 0.27 (base case 0.35). The ICUR favored EVL unless the relative risk of bleeding on BB is < 0.46, the relative risk of bleeding with EVL is > 0.46, or the time horizon is < or = 24 months. Whether EVL is "cost-effective" relative to BB therapy for primary prevention of EV bleeding depends on whether LYs or QALYs are considered. If only LYs are considered, then EVL is not cost-effective compared to BB therapy; however, if QoL is considered, then EVL is cost-effective.

A simple clinical score predicts high risk for upper gastrointestinal hemorrhages from varices in patients with chronic liver disease

OBJECTIVE

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding from esophageal or gastric fundus varices is a common complication of portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis and carries a high mortality rate of 20-35%. Stratifying high-risk patients for variceal bleeding is mainly based on endoscopic scoring. The purpose of this study was to develop a simple clinical score to assess the bleeding risk.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 111 patients with chronic liver diseases were included during evaluation for potential liver transplantation and were followed for 6 years. Findings at study entry were analyzed for their value in predicting hemorrhages.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients (22%) developed upper GI hemorrhages from varices during the follow-up period. Common characteristics at study entry of patients with future bleedings included viral hepatitis or alcoholic etiology, advanced-stage cirrhosis, decreased liver function, impaired hemostasis and endoscopic presence of varices. These parameters were also independent predictors of bleedings. A four-item Bleeding Risk Score, including cholinesterase <2.25 kU/l, international normalized ratio (INR) >1.2, viral or alcoholic etiology and presence of varices, was used to identify patients at high (>2 points) or low (<or=2) risk of bleedings, and found superior in sensitivity and specificity to the Child-Pugh or MELD score.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple clinical score can predict the risk for upper GI bleedings in patients with chronic liver disease. This Bleeding Risk Score may help to supplement current endoscopic and clinical approaches to identify high-risk patients.

Prevention of the development of varices and first portal hypertensive bleeding episode

Variceal bleeding is a serious complication in patients with cirrhosis. Although bleeding related mortality rates have fallen recently, it continues to be amongst the leading causes of death. Cirrhotics should be screened for varices at diagnosis. Data on preventing formation/growth of oesophageal varices (pre-primary prophylaxis) are conflicting, with insufficient evidence to use beta-blockers. In order to prevent first bleeding, there is strong evidence in patients with medium/large size oesophageal varices that either non-selective beta-blockers or banding ligation can be used. Banding is superior with respect to bleeding but mortality is similar. Non-selective beta-blockers should remain first line treatment being effective, cheap and without serious complications. In contrast banding ligation is more expensive, requires specialised staff, cannot prevent bleeding from portal hypertensive gastropathy and can cause iatrogenic bleeding. Patients with small varices, particularly if they have progressive liver disease also benefit from beta-blockers, but fewer studies confirm this therapeutic approach.

Randomized controlled study of 3 different types of hemoclips for hemostasis of bleeding canine acute gastric ulcers

BACKGROUND

Mechanical closure of bleeding vessels is clinically appealing, and several types of hemoclips are now marketed for endoscopic hemostasis of nonvariceal lesions. No comparative data have been reported on ease of clip placement, hemostasis efficacy, or clip retention rates on bleeding ulcers.

OBJECTIVE

To compare 3 different types of hemoclips for hemostasis of bleeding ulcers.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled study.

SUBJECTS

Seven adult dogs with prehepatic portal hypertension were heparinized, and acute gastric ulcers were made with jumbo biopsy forceps. Animals had oral proton pump inhibitors daily and weekly endoscopies to quantitate clip retention and ulcer healing.

INTERVENTIONS

Bleeding ulcers were randomized in pairs (2 for each treatment/dog) to endoscopic hemoclip treatment or control.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Initial times and success of deployment, hemostasis efficacy, clip retention rates, and ulcer healing during endoscopic follow-ups.

RESULTS

There was no difference in initial hemostasis rates of hemoclips, and no major complications occurred. Ulcer healing times were faster (Resolution Clip [RC] or TriClip [TC]) or similar (QuickClip2 [QC]) to controls. Clip retention at 1 week was significantly less with TC and, at 3 to 7 weeks, was significantly higher with RC.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) For the 3 hemoclip devices, initial hemostasis rates were 100%, but all devices required similar learning time to place clips successfully. (2) Short-term retention rates of TC were significantly less than QC or RC. (3) Long-term clip retention was significantly higher with RC. (4) All 3 hemoclips were safe, and none interfered with ulcer healing.

Endoscopic therapy for bleeding esophageal varices improves the outcome of Child C cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Bleeding from esophageal varices is one of the frequent severe complications arising in patients with liver cirrhosis. The management of esophageal varices is therefore important for patient survival. The purpose of this study was to clarify the predictive factors for mortality in patients with Child C cirrhosis presenting with variceal bleeding.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 77 Child C cirrhotic patients with bleeding from esophageal varices was conducted. All patients received endoscopic therapy. Twenty-nine patients received endoscopic variceal ligation, and 48 patients received endoscopic injection sclerotherapy or endoscopic injection sclerotherapy with ligation. Univariate and multivariate analyses of clinical data were performed to identify the prognostic factors for survival for these 77 patients.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven of 77 patients received endoscopic therapy within 24 h after variceal bleeding, and bleeding was controlled in 55 (96.5%). The remaining 20 patients received endoscopic therapy more than 24 h after bleeding. Higher bilirubin level and rebleeding were the predictive parameters for 6-week survival in the 77 patients, according to univariate and multivariate analysis. Higher bilirubin level, refractory ascites, and the presence of hepatocellular carcinoma were the predictive parameters for mortality in 77 patients as determined by multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic therapy was effective in controlling acute variceal bleeding of Child C cirrhotic patients. The prognosis of Child C stage patients presenting with variceal bleeding depended on the severity of liver damage and the presence of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Portal hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Significant advances in the pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of the complications of portal hypertension that have occurred in the last year are reported.

RECENT FINDINGS

The specific areas reviewed are those that refer to experimental studies aimed at modifying the factors that lead to portal hypertension (increased intrahepatic vascular resistance and splanchnic vasodilatation) and recent advances in the diagnosis and management of the complications of portal hypertension. The specific complications reviewed in this paper are varices and variceal bleeding (primary prophylaxis, treatment of the acute episode and secondary prophylaxis), ascites and hepatorenal syndrome, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and hepatic encephalopathy, as well as recent studies of predictors of death in cirrhosis.

SUMMARY

Important studies, mostly prospective, regarding the management of the complications of portal hypertension are reviewed, including a trial of beta-blockers in the prevention of varices, a randomized trial of endoscopic variceal ligation plus nadolol in preventing recurrent variceal bleeding and several meta-analyses on trials comparing large-volume paracentesis with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the management of refractory ascites.

Endoscopic band ligation in the treatment of portal hypertension

The evidence that endoscopic band ligation (EBL) has greater efficacy and fewer side effects than endoscopic injection sclerotherapy has renewed interest in endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension. The introduction of multishot band devices, which allow the placement of 5-10 bands at a time, has made the technique much easier to perform, avoiding the use of overtubes and their related complications. EBL sessions are usually repeated at 2 week intervals until varices are obliterated, which is achieved in about 90% of patients after 2-4 sessions. Variceal recurrence is frequent, with 20-75% of patients requiring repeated EBL sessions. According to current evidence, nonselective beta-blockers are the preferred treatment option for prevention of a first variceal bleed, whereas EBL should be reserved for patients with contraindications or intolerance to beta-blockers. Nonselective beta-blockers, probably in association with the vasodilator isosorbide mononitrate, and EBL are good treatment options to prevent recurrent variceal rebleeding. The efficacy of EBL might be increased by combining it with beta-blocker therapy. Patients who are intolerant, have contraindications or bled while receiving primary prophylaxis with beta-blockers must be treated with EBL. In the latter situation, EBL should be added to rather than replace beta-blocker therapy. EBL, in combination with vasoactive drugs, is the recommended form of therapy for acute esophageal variceal bleeding; however, endoscopic injection sclerotherapy can be used in the acute setting if EBL is technically difficult.

The management of portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is an almost unavoidable complication of cirrhosis, and it is responsible for the more lethal complications of this syndrome. Appearance of these complications represents the major cause of death and liver transplantation in patients who have cirrhosis. This article highlights treatment modalities in use for managing portal hypertension and those that may be available in the future.