A prospective, randomized controlled trial of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus cyanoacrylate injection in the prevention of gastric variceal rebleeding

Complications and management of elective endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection with lauromacrogol for gastric varices

OBJECTIVE

To report the complications and evaluate the risk factors of elective endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection with lauromacrogol for gastric varices in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

A total of 583 elective endoscopic tissue adhesives procedures were performed in 439 patients in our hospital from January 2015 to December 2016. The clinical characteristics and complications were retrospectively collected and evaluated.

RESULTS

The median age was 56 ± 11 years, and 290 (66.1%) patients were male. The main etiology of liver cirrhosis was hepatitis virus (63.3%). Two hundred fifty-nine (59.0%) patients were classified as Child-Pugh Class A. Bleeding occurred in 44 patients (7.5%) during procedures. Two patients developed distant embolism (0.5%; one pulmonary, one cerebra). In perioperative period, fever was a common complication; however, only 16 cases had high fever and one case had sepsis. Bleeding was observed in 7 (1.2%) patients. Overall incidence of the major perioperative complication was 3.8%. The major postoperative complication rate was 10.4% (60/582, 26 rebleeds, 27 ascites increase, 12 new-onset portal vein thrombosis). The complication-related death was 1.6% (one death from embolism, five deaths from rebleeding, one death from refractory ascites). Injection point was the only factor related to the major perioperative complications [odds ratio (OR) = 1.581, 95% CI, 1.086-2.301; P < 0.05]. Etiology of cirrhosis and injection point were independent risk factors of major postoperative complications (OR = 1.830, 95% CI, 1.005-3.331, P = 0.048; OR = 1.373, 95% CI, 1.089-1.731, P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of complications after elective endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection with lauromacrogol for gastric varices was low. The injection point was the risk factor for both perioperative and postoperative complications.

Prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with spontaneous portosystemic shunts: transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus endoscopic treatment

BACKGROUND

Spontaneous portosystemic shunts(SPSSs) in cirrhotic patients indicate higher incidence of gastric varices, which increases the risk for bleeding and death. However, few studies compared endoscopic therapy with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in preventing variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with SPSSs. This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the two methods in this group of patients.

METHODS

We reviewed consecutive cirrhotic patients with SPSSs who underwent either TIPS or endoscopic treatment to prevent variceal rebleeding between January 2015 and December 2018 in our institution. Outcomes including rebleeding, overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE), complications and survival were compared. Meanwhile, subgroup analyses were conducted to screen relevant factors affecting the results.

RESULTS

A total of 97 patients were included in the study. The TIPS arm contained 50 patients and the endoscopy arm contained 47 patients. Rebleeding rate in TIPS group was statistically lower than endoscopic group [16.0 vs 38.3%, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.16-0.84, P = 0.01], while OHE was more frequent (16.0 vs 2.1%, HR = 7.59, 95% CI: 0.94-61.2, P = 0.025), the survival rate (92 vs 89.4%, HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.22-3.60, P = 0.87) and frequency of complications were comparable between two groups. In the subgroups of GOV2/IGV1 and splenorenal shunt/gastrorenal shunt, compared with endoscopic treatments, TIPS reduced the rate of rebleeding without significantly increasing overt hepatic encephalopathy; however, it did not improve survival rate.

CONCLUSIONS

For cirrhotic patients with SPSSs, TIPS brought a lower rebleeding rate but a higher incidence of OHE. However, in the subgroups of GOV2/IGV1 and splenorenal shunt/gastrorenal shunt, TIPS was considered more reasonable due to the lower rebleeding rate and comparable OHE incidence.

Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Creation for the Prevention of Gastric Variceal Rebleeding in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation for the prevention of gastric variceal rebleeding in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study included 126 cirrhotic patients (mean age, 54.1 ± 10.2 years; 110 men) with HCC who underwent TIPS creation for the prevention of gastric variceal rebleeding. Of these, 110 (87.3%) patients had gastroesophageal varices and 16 (12.7%) patients had isolated gastric varices. Thirty-five (27.8%) patients had portal vein tumor thrombus.

RESULTS

TIPS creation was technically successful in 124 (98.4%) patients. Rebleeding occurred in 26 (20.6%) patients during the follow-up period. The 6-week and 1-year actuarial probabilities of patients remaining free of rebleeding were 98.3% ± 1.2% and 81.2% ± 3.9%, respectively. Forty-nine (38.8%) patients died during the follow-up period. The 6-week and 1-year actuarial probabilities of survival were 98.4 ± 1.1% and 65.6 ± 4.4%, respectively. Two (1.6%) patients had major procedure-related complications, including acute liver failure (n = 1) and intra-abdominal bleeding (n = 1). Thirty-three (26.2%) patients had at least 1 episode of overt hepatic encephalopathy during the follow-up period. Shunt dysfunction occurred in 15 (11.9%) patients after a median follow-up time of 11.4 months (range, 1.4-41.3 months). Lung metastasis occurred in 3 (2.4%) patients, 3.9-32.9 months after TIPS creation.

CONCLUSIONS

TIPS creation may be effective and safe for the prevention of gastric variceal rebleeding in patients with HCC.

Combined Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Plus Variceal Obliteration versus Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Alone for the Management of Gastric Varices: Comparative Single-Center Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE

To compare the safety and clinical outcomes of combined transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) plus variceal obliteration to those of TIPS alone for the treatment of gastric varices (GVs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-center, retrospective study of 40 patients with bleeding or high-risk GVs between 2008 and 2019 was performed. The patients were treated with combined therapy (n = 18) or TIPS alone (n = 22). There were no significant differences in age, sex, model for end-stage liver disease score, or GV type between the groups. The primary outcomes were the rates of GV eradication and rebleeding. The secondary outcomes included portal hypertensive complications and hepatic encephalopathy.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 15.4 months for the combined therapy group and 22.9 months for the TIPS group (P = .32). After combined therapy, there was a higher rate of GV eradication (92% vs 47%, P = .01) and a trend toward a lower rate of GV rebleeding (0% vs 23%, P = .056). The estimated rebleeding rates were 0% versus 5% at 3 months, 0% versus 11% at 6 months, 0% versus 18% at 1 year, and 0% versus 38% at 2 years after combined therapy and TIPS, respectively (P = .077). There was no difference in ascites (13% vs 11%, P = .63), hepatic encephalopathy (47% vs 55%, P = .44), or esophageal variceal bleeding (0% vs 0%, P > .999) after the procedure between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The GV eradication rate is significantly higher after combined therapy, with no associated increase in portal hypertensive complications. This translates to a clinically meaningful trend toward a reduction in GV rebleeding. The value of a combined treatment strategy should be prospectively studied in a larger cohort to determine the optimal management of GVs.

Keeping Patients with End-Stage Liver Disease Alive While Awaiting Transplant: Management of Complications of Portal Hypertension

Complications of portal hypertension such as gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage, ascites, and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, as well as pulmonary complications, are often responsible for diminished quality of life, excess morbidity and mortality, increased health care resource use and expenditure, and dropout from the liver transplant (LT) waiting list. Therefore, the care of LT candidates on the waiting list must be centered on anticipation and prompt intervention for these complications.

The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) in the Management of Gastric Varices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gastric varices (GV) are an important complication of portal hypertension, and the current recommendation for management is beta-blocker therapy for primary prophylaxis and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for active bleeding or secondary prophylaxis. Direct endoscopic injection of cyanoacrylate (CYA) glue has been investigated but has drawbacks including limited endoscopic characterization of GV and possible distal glue embolism. To this end, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been pursued to help in characterization of GV, visualization of treatment in real time, and confirmation of obliteration with Doppler.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this paper, we review treatments for GV involving EUS, including EUS-guided injection of CYA and coils, either alone or in combination. We also discuss less common methods, including EUS-guided injection of thrombin and absorbable gelatin sponge. We then review literature comparing EUS-guided methods with direct endoscopic therapy and comparing individual EUS-guided methods with one another. We conclude by highlighting drawbacks of EUS in this field, including the unproven benefit over conventional therapy, lack of a standardized approach, and limited availability of expertise and necessary materials. Novel EUS-based methods offer a unique opportunity to directly visualize and access gastric varices for treatment and obliteration. This may provide key advantages over current endoscopic or angiographic treatments. Comparative studies investigating the benefit of EUS over conventional therapy are needed.

Management of portal hypertension severe complications

Portal hypertension is a clinical syndrome characterized by an increase in the portal pressure gradient, defined as the gradient between the portal vein at the site downstream of the site of obstruction and the inferior vena cava. The most frequent cause of portal hypertension is cirrhosis. In patients with cirrhosis, portal hypertension is the main driver of cirrhosis progression and development of hepatic decompensation (ascites, variceal hemorrhage and hepatic encephalopathy), which defines the transition from compensated to decompensated stage. In decompensated patients, treatments aim at lowering the risk of death by preventing further decompensation and/or development of acute-on-chronic liver failure. Decompensated patients often pose a complex challenge which typically requires a multidisciplinary approach. The aims of the present review were to discuss the current knowledge regarding interventional treatments for patients with portal hypertension complications as well as to highlight useful information to aid hepatologists in their clinical practice. Specifically, we discussed the indications and contraindications of transjugular intra-hepatic portosystemic shunt and for the treatment of gastro-esophageal variceal hemorrhage in patients with decompensated cirrhosis (first section); we reviewed the use of interventional treatments in patients with hepatic vein obstruction (Budd-Chiari Syndrome) and in those with portal vein thrombosis (second section); and we briefly comment on the most frequent applications of selective splenic embolization in patients with and without underlying cirrhosis (third section).

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement: portal vein puncture guided by 3D/2D image registration of contrast-enhanced multi-detector computed tomography and fluoroscopy

Background

To assess the technical feasibility, success rate, puncture complications and procedural characteristics of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement using a three-dimensional vascular map (3D-VM) overlay based on image registration of pre-procedural contrast-enhanced (CE) multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) for portal vein puncture guidance.

Materials and methods

Overall, 27 consecutive patients (59 ± 9 years, 18male) with portal hypertension undergoing elective TIPS procedure were included. TIPS was guided by CE-MDCT overlay after image registration based on fluoroscopic images. A 3D-VM of the hepatic veins and the portal vein was created based on the pre-procedural CE-MDCT and superimposed on fluoroscopy in real-time. Procedural characteristics as well as hepatic vein catheterization time (HVCT), puncture time (PT), overall procedural time (OPT), fluoroscopy time (FT) and the dose area product (DAP) were evaluated. Thereafter, HVCT, PT, OPT and FT using 3D-VM (61 ± 9 years, 14male) were compared to a previous using classical fluoroscopic guidance (53 ± 9 years, 21male) for two interventional radiologist with less than 3 years of experience in TIPS placement.

Results

All TIPS procedure using of 3D/2D image registered 3D-VM were successful with a significant reduction of the PSG (p < 0.0001). No clinical significant complication occurred. HVCT was 14 ± 11 min, PT was 14 ± 6 min, OPT was 64 ± 29 min, FT was 21 ± 12 min and DAP was 107.48 ± 93.84 Gy cm². HVCT, OPT and FT of the interventionalist with less TIPS experience using 3D/2D image registered 3D-VM were statistically different to an interventionalist with similar experience using fluoroscopic guidance (p_HVCT = 0.0022; p_OPT = 0.0097; p_FT = 0.0009). PT between these interventionalists was not significantly different (p_PT = 0.2905).

Conclusion

TIPS placement applying registration-based CE-MDCT vessel information for puncture guidance is feasible and safe. It has the potential to improve hepatic vein catherization, portal vein puncture and radiation exposure.

Portosystemic shunts versus endoscopic intervention with or without medical treatment for prevention of rebleeding in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

People with liver cirrhosis who have had one episode of variceal bleeding are at risk for repeated episodes of bleeding. Endoscopic intervention and portosystemic shunts are used to prevent further bleeding, but there is no consensus as to which approach is preferable.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of shunts (surgical shunts (total shunt (TS), distal splenorenal shunt (DSRS), or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)) versus endoscopic intervention (endoscopic sclerotherapy or banding, or both) with or without medical treatment (non-selective beta blockers or nitrates, or both) for prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with liver cirrhosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CHBG Controlled Trials Register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS (Bireme); Science Citation Index - Expanded (Web of Science); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science); as well as conference proceedings and the references of trials identified until 22 June 2020. We contacted study investigators and industry researchers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing shunts versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis who had recovered from a variceal haemorrhage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. When possible, we collected data to allow intention-to-treat analysis. For each outcome, we estimated a meta-analysed estimate of treatment effect across trials (risk ratio for binary outcomes). We used random-effects model meta-analysis as our main analysis and as a means of presenting results. We reported differences in means for continuous outcomes without a meta-analytic estimate due to high variability in their assessment among all trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 27 randomised trials with 1828 participants. Three trials assessed TSs, five assessed DSRSs, and 19 trials assessed TIPSs. The endoscopic intervention was sclerotherapy in 16 trials, band ligation in eight trials, and a combination of band ligation and either sclerotherapy or glue injection in three trials. In eight trials, endoscopy was combined with beta blockers (in one trial plus isosorbide mononitrate). We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all the outcome review results as very low (i.e. the true effects of the results are likely to be substantially different from the results of estimated effects). The very low evidence grading is due to the overall high risk of bias for all trials, and to imprecision and publication bias for some outcomes. Therefore, we are very uncertain whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment have effects on all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.13; 1828 participants; 27 trials), on rebleeding (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50; 1769 participants; 26 trials), on mortality due to rebleeding (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; 1779 participants; 26 trials), and on occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy, both acute (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.92; 1649 participants; 24 trials) and chronic (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.55; 956 participants; 13 trials). No data were available regarding health-related quality of life. Analysing each modality of portosystemic shunts individually (i.e. TS, DSRS, and TIPS) versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment, we are very uncertain if each type of shunt has effect on all-cause mortality: TS, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.13; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.33; 352 participants; 4 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.31; 1312 participants; 19 trial; on rebleeding: TS, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.56; 127 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.65; 330 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.55; 1312 participants; 19 trials; on mortality due to rebleeding: TS, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.74; 352 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.04; 1263 participants; 18 trials; on acute hepatic encephalopathy: TS, RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.92; 115 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.08; 287 participants; 4 trials, TIPS, RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.99; 1247 participants; 18 trials; and chronic hepatic encephalopathy: TS, Fisher's exact test P = 0.11; 69 participants; 1 trial; DSRS, RR 4.87, 95% CI 1.46 to 16.23; 170 participants; 2 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.93 to 3.80; 717 participants; 10 trials. The proportion of participants with shunt occlusion or dysfunction was overall 37% (95% CI 33% to 40%). It was 3% (95% CI 0.8% to 10%) following TS, 7% (95% CI 3% to 13%) following DSRS, and 47.1% (95% CI 43% to 51%) following TIPS. Shunt dysfunction in trials utilising polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents was 17% (95% CI 11% to 24%). Length of inpatient hospital stay and cost were not comparable across trials. Funding was unclear in 16 trials; 11 trials were funded by government, local hospitals, or universities.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis and previous hypertensive portal bleeding have little or no effect on all-cause mortality is very uncertain. Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts may reduce bleeding and mortality due to bleeding while increasing hepatic encephalopathy is also very uncertain. We need properly conducted trials to assess effects of these interventions not only on assessed outcomes, but also on quality of life, costs, and length of hospital stay.

Managing liver cirrhotic complications: Overview of esophageal and gastric varices

Managing liver cirrhosis in clinical practice is still a challenging problem as its progression is associated with serious complications, such as variceal bleeding that may increase mortality. Portal hypertension (PH) is the main key for the development of liver cirrhosis complications. Portal pressure above 10 mmHg, termed as clinically significant portal hypertension, is associated with formation of varices; meanwhile, portal pressure above 12 mmHg is associated with variceal bleeding. Hepatic vein pressure gradient measurement and esophagogastroduodenoscopy remain the gold standard for assessing portal pressure and detecting varices. Recently, non-invasive methods have been studied for evaluation of portal pressure and varices detection in liver cirrhotic patients. Various guidelines have been published for clinicians’ guidance in the management of esophagogastric varices which aims to prevent development of varices, acute variceal bleeding, and variceal rebleeding. This writing provides a comprehensive review on development of PH and varices in liver cirrhosis patients and its management based on current international guidelines and real experience in Indonesia.

Where does TIPS fit in the management of patients with cirrhosis?

In this review, we summarise the current knowledge on the indications and contraindications of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement for the treatment of the complications of portal hypertension in cirrhosis, specifically variceal haemorrhage and ascites. Moreover, we discuss the role of TIPS for the treatment of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and the prevention of complications after extrahepatic surgery ('preoperative TIPS') in patients with cirrhosis. The position of TIPS in the treatment hierarchy depends on the clinical setting and on patient characteristics. In acute variceal haemorrhage, preemptive TIPS is indicated in patients at a high risk of failing standard therapy, that is those with a Child-Pugh score of 10-13 points or Child-Pugh B with active bleeding at endoscopy, although the survival benefit in the latter group still remains to be established. Non-preemptive TIPS is a second-line therapy for the prevention of recurrent variceal haemorrhage and for the treatment of ascites. Of note, TIPS may also improve sarcopenia. Contraindications to TIPS placement, independent of clinical setting, include very advanced disease (Child-Pugh >13 points), episodes of recurrent overt hepatic encephalopathy without an identifiable precipitating factor, heart failure, and pulmonary hypertension. In patients with PVT, TIPS placement not only controls complications of portal hypertension, but also promotes portal vein recanalisation. Although the severity of portal hypertension correlates with poor outcomes after extrahepatic surgery, there is no evidence to recommend preoperative TIPS placement.

Evaluation and Management of Esophageal and Gastric Varices in Patients with Cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is a complication of cirrhosis that defines decompensation. Important advances in the management of gastroesophageal varices have led to a significant decrease in the morbidity and mortality. Achieving these results in clinical practice is contingent on clinicians applying the best practice strategies and appropriate referral to a tertiary center. Several quality metrics were developed by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. This article aims to update outpatient and inpatient strategies to include the latest recommendations on variceal screening and surveillance, primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and therapy for patients with acute variceal bleeding.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt in the management of portal hypertension

These guidelines on transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt (TIPSS) in the management of portal hypertension 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 guidelines are new and have been produced in collaboration with the British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR) and British Association of the Study of the Liver (BASL). The guidelines development group comprises elected members of the BSG Liver Section, representation from BASL, a nursing representative and two patient representatives. The quality of evidence and grading of recommendations was appraised using the GRADE system. These guidelines are aimed at healthcare professionals considering referring a patient for a TIPSS. They comprise the following subheadings: indications; patient selection; procedural details; complications; and research agenda. They are not designed to address: the management of the underlying liver disease; the role of TIPSS in children; or complex technical and procedural aspects of TIPSS.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiologic Management of Gastric Varices

Hemorrhage, resulting from gastric varies, can be challenging to treat, given the various precipitating etiologies. A wide variety of treatment options exist for managing the diverse range of the underlying disease processes. While cirrhosis is the most common cause for gastric variceal bleeding, occlusion of the portal or splenic vein in noncirrhotic states results in a markedly different treatment paradigm. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

The role of a multidisciplinary team in the management of portal hypertension

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage is the most severe complication of portal hypertension, with a high mortality rate. The current recommendations for gastroesophageal varices include pharmacological treatment, endoscopic treatment, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement, and splenectomy with devascularization surgery. Multidisciplinary team (MDT) comprises of a group of medical experts and specialists across a range of disciplines, providing personalized and targeted patient care tailored to each individual's condition, circumstances, and expectations.

METHODS

Patients referred to the MDT clinic since its establishment in September 2014 were prospectively enrolled and followed-up for at least 12 months. Patient baseline characteristics, treatment methods, outcome and survival were compared to non-MDT patients retrieved from a prospectively maintained database with propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Propensity-score matching (PSM) was carried out to balance available covariates, resulting in 58 MDT patients vs. 111 non-MDT patients. Overall survival and variceal rebleed was compared between the two groups. The rate of variceal rebleed was significantly higher in the non-MDT group, while no difference in overall survival was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to investigate the role of a multidisciplinary team in the management of gastroesophageal varices secondary to portal hypertension. Patients treated based on MDT clinic recommendations had a significantly lower risk for variceal rebleed.

The role of a multidisciplinary team in the management of portal hypertension

Background

Gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage is the most severe complication of portal hypertension, with a high mortality rate. The current recommendations for gastroesophageal varices include pharmacological treatment, endoscopic treatment, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement, and splenectomy with devascularization surgery. Multidisciplinary team (MDT) comprises of a group of medical experts and specialists across a range of disciplines, providing personalized and targeted patient care tailored to each individual’s condition, circumstances, and expectations.

Methods

Patients referred to the MDT clinic since its establishment in September 2014 were prospectively enrolled and followed-up for at least 12 months. Patient baseline characteristics, treatment methods, outcome and survival were compared to non-MDT patients retrieved from a prospectively maintained database with propensity score matching.

Results

Propensity-score matching (PSM) was carried out to balance available covariates, resulting in 58 MDT patients vs. 111 non-MDT patients. Overall survival and variceal rebleed was compared between the two groups. The rate of variceal rebleed was significantly higher in the non-MDT group, while no difference in overall survival was observed.

Conclusions

This study is the first to investigate the role of a multidisciplinary team in the management of gastroesophageal varices secondary to portal hypertension. Patients treated based on MDT clinic recommendations had a significantly lower risk for variceal rebleed.

Emergent Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Creation in Acute Variceal Bleeding

Emergent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation is most commonly employed in the setting of acute variceal hemorrhage. Given a propensity for decompensation, these patients often require a multidisciplinary, multimodal approach involving prompt diagnosis, pharmacologic therapy, and endoscopic intervention. While successful in the majority of cases, failure to medically control initial bleeding can prompt interventional radiology consultation for emergent portal decompression via TIPS creation. This article discusses TIPS creation in emergent, acute variceal hemorrhage, reviewing the natural history of gastroesophageal varices, presentation and diagnosis of acute variceal hemorrhage, pharmacologic therapy, endoscopic approaches, patient selection and risk stratification for TIPS, technical considerations for TIPS creation, adjunctive embolotherapy, and the role of salvage TIPS versus early TIPS in acute variceal hemorrhage.

Management Options for Gastric Variceal Hemorrhage

Importance

Varices are one of the main clinical manifestations of cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Gastric varices are less common than esophageal varices but are often associated with poorer prognosis, mainly because of their higher propensity to bleed.

Observations

Currently, treatments used to control and manage gastric variceal bleeding include β-blockers, endoscopic injection sclerotherapy, endoscopic variceal ligation, endoscopic variceal obturation, shunt surgery, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts, balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO), and modified BRTO. In the past few decades, Western (United States and Europe) interventional radiologists have preferred transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts that aim to decompress the liver and reduce portal pressure. Conversely, Eastern radiologists (Japan and South Korea) have preferred BRTO that directly targets the gastric varices. Over the past 20 years, BRTO has evolved and procedure-related risks have decreased. Owing to its safety and efficiency in treating gastric varices, BRTO is now starting to gain popularity among Western interventional radiologists. In this review, we present a comprehensive literature review of current and emerging management options, including BRTO and modified BRTO, for the treatment of gastric varices in the setting of cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

Conclusions and Relevance

Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration has emerged as a safe and effective alternative treatment option for gastric variceal hemorrhage. A proper training, evidence-based consensus and guideline, thorough preprocedural and postprocedural evaluation, and a multidisciplinary team approach with BRTO and modified BRTO are strongly recommended to ensure best patient care.

Beta-blockers in cirrhosis: Evidence-based indications and limitations

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are the mainstay of treatment for portal hypertension in the setting of liver cirrhosis. Randomised controlled trials demonstrated their efficacy in preventing initial variceal bleeding and subsequent rebleeding. Recent evidence indicates that NSBBs could prevent liver decompensation in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Despite solid data favouring NSBB use in cirrhosis, some studies have highlighted relevant safety issues in patients with end-stage liver disease, particularly with refractory ascites and infection. This review summarises the evidence supporting current recommendations and restrictions of NSBB use in patients with cirrhosis.

Risk stratification for secondary prophylaxis of gastric varices due to portal hypertension

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage is a common complication associated with portal hypertension. Current guidelines provide well-established recommendations for esophageal varices, while that of gastric varices remain scarce and lack evidential strength. The aim of the study is to identify a feasible risk stratification method based on imaging findings to evaluate patient response to cyanoacrylate injection for the treatment of gastric varices.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study including patients diagnosed with gastric varices admitted for initial secondary prophylactic treatment for GV was conducted. Routine endoscopic examination and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) were performed on all subjects to evaluate extraluminal collaterals. All patients with gastric varices were treated uniformly with cyanoacrylate injection. Patients were prospectively followed for at least 12 months and any occurrence of variceal rebleed was recorded.

RESULTS

102 subjects were enrolled in the study, 66.7% had GOV Type 2, 27.5% had GOV Type 1 and 5.9% had IGV Type 1. During the 12 months follow-up, 33.3% patients experienced variceal rebleed. A risk assessment scoring system was proposed based on endoscopic and EUS findings. A Cox regression analysis demonstrated a significant association between the merited risk score and incidence of variceal rebleed (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Presence of red wales sign, size of varix, and presence of para-gastric vein were all independent risk factors for variceal rebleed after endoscopic therapy for the treatment of gastric varices. Early identification of this subgroup, especially those with higher risk scores, necessitates a change in course of treatment, which can improve prognosis and overall patient outcome.

Gastric variceal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are no well-established guidelines for the management of gastric variceal bleeding. Endoscopic management of acute gastric variceal bleeding has been premised on the injection of sclerosants and synthetic glue. However, these therapies are associated with various complications including systemic embolization and recurrent bleeding. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions including coil injection have emerged as promising modalities with high technical and clinical success rates and low rates of recurrence.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review we discuss the classification, natural history, prognosis, and treatment options of gastric variceal. Discussion of treatment is further subdivided into primary and secondary prophylaxis and the management of acute gastric variceal bleeding with a focus on emerging endoscopic interventions.

SUMMARY

Cyanoacrylate injection may have a role in the primary and secondary prophylaxis of gastric variceal. Endoscopic band ligation should be considered for GOV1. EUS-guided injection of synthetic glues like cyanoacrylate is superior to direct injection. However, EUS-guided coil injections with or without cyanoacrylate should be considered first-line endoscopic treatment in all bleeding gastric variceal except for GOV1. Balloon retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) remain important interventional radiologic therapeutic options as primary therapy in centers without EUS expertise or as salvage therapy.

Varices: Esophageal, Gastric, and Rectal

Gastrointestinal varices are associated with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Variceal hemorrhage is a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality, with esophageal and gastric varices the most common source and rectal varices a much less common cause of severe gastrointestinal bleeding. The goals of managing variceal hemorrhage are control of active bleeding and prevention of rebleeding. This article focuses on reviewing the current management strategies, including optimal medical, endoscopic, and angiographic interventions and their clinical outcomes to achieve these goals. Evidence based discussion is used with current references as much as possible.

Role of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt in the Management of Portal Hypertension: Review and Update of the Literature

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is a well-established procedure used in the management of complications of portal hypertension. Although the most robust evidence supports the use of TIPS as salvage therapy in variceal hemorrhage, secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and treatment of refractory ascites, there is also data to suggest its efficacy in other indications such as hepatic hydrothorax, hepatorenal syndrome, and Budd-Chiari syndrome. Recent literature also suggests that TIPS may improve survival for certain subpopulations if placed early after variceal bleeding. This article provides an updated evidence-based review of the indications for TIPS. Outcomes, complications, and adequate patient selection are also discussed.

The current knowledge about the therapeutic use of endoscopic sclerotherapy and endoscopic tissue adhesives in variceal bleeding

Introduction: The most recent guidelines vary in their approach to the management of variceal bleeding especially with the use of endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) and endoscopic tissue adhesive (ETA). This review highlights their clinical use for variceal bleeding from different guidelines perspectives. Areas covered: A comprehensive literature review of three major guidelines including the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) 2017, United Kingdom (UK) guidelines 2015 and Baveno VI Consensus workshop guidelines in 2015 on the use of ES and ETA in variceal bleeding. Expert opinion: While endoscopic band ligation (EBL) completely replaced endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) for esophageal varices. There is a valuable use of endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) and endoscopic tissue adhesive (ETA) especially for patients with gastroesophageal varices (GOV2) and isolated gastric varices (IGV2). The current standard of care heading toward portosystemic shunting with Trans-jugular-Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (TIPS) and balloon retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO). However, recent advancement in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) allowing direct injection of sclerosant and tissue adhesive into the varix bringing promising results in achieving hemostasis and lowering the risk of complications. Also, ES and ETA have great clinical value in achieving hemostasis for isolated (ectopic) varices and stomal varices.

Comparision between portosystemic shunts and endoscopic therapy for prevention of variceal re-bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Portosystemic shunts, including surgical portosystemic shunts and transjugular intra-hepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), may have benefit over endoscopic therapy (ET) for treatment of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension; however, whether there being a survival benefit among them remains unclear. This study was to compare the effect of three above-mentioned therapies on the short-term and long-term survival in patient with cirrhosis.

Methods:

Using the terms “variceal hemorrhage or variceal bleeding or variceal re-bleeding” OR “esophageal and gastric varices” OR “portal hypertension” and “liver cirrhosis,” the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and the references of identified trials were searched for human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language with full texts or abstracts (last search June 2017). Risk ratio (RR) estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using random effects model by Review Manager. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for the assessment of the risk of bias.

Results:

Twenty-six publications comprising 28 RCTs were included in this analysis. These studies included a total of 2845 patients: 496 (4 RCTs) underwent either surgical portosystemic shunts or TIPS, 1244 (9 RCTs) underwent either surgical portosystemic shunts or ET, and 1105 (15 RCTs) underwent either TIPS or ET. There was no significant difference in overall mortality and 30-day or 6-week survival among three interventions. Compared with TIPS and ET, separately, surgical portosystemic shunts were both associated with a lower bleeding-related mortality (RR = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.01–0.32; P < 0.001; RR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.06–0.51, P < 0.005) and rate of variceal re-bleeding (RR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.10–0.51, P < 0.001; RR = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.04–0.24, P < 0.001), without a significant difference in the rate of postoperative hepatic encephalopathy (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.25–1.00, P = 0.14; RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.59–2.01, P = 0.78). TIPS showed a trend toward lower variceal re-bleeding (RR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.36–0.58, P < 0.001), but a higher incidence of hepatic encephalopathy than ET (RR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.34–2.36, P < 0.001).

Conclusions:

The overall analysis revealed that there seem to be no short-term and long-term survival advantage, but surgical portosystemic shunts are with the lowest bleeding-related mortality among the three therapies. Surgical portosystemic shunts may be the most effective without an increased risk of hepatic encephalopathy and TIPS is superior to ET but at the cost of a higher incidence of hepatic encephalopathy. However, some of findings should be interpreted with caution due to the lower level of evidence and the existence of significant heterogeneity.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INVASIVE PROCEDURES IN PATIENTS WITH DISEASES OF THE LIVER AND BILIARY TRACT: REPORT OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF HEPATOLOGY (SBH), BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY (SOBED) AND BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY (SOBRICE)

Liver and biliary tract diseases are common causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Invasive procedures are usually performed in those patients with hepatobiliary diseases for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Defining proper indications and restraints of commonly used techniques is crucial for proper patient selection, maximizing positive results and limiting complications. In 2018, the Brazilian Society of Hepato-logy (SBH) in cooperation with the Brazilian Society of Interventional Radiology and Endovascular surgery (SOBRICE) and the Brazilian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SOBED) sponsored a joint single-topic meeting on invasive procedures in patients with hepatobiliary diseases. This paper summarizes the proceedings of the aforementioned meeting. It is intended to guide clinicians, gastroenterologists, hepatologists, radiologists, and endoscopists for the proper use of invasive procedures for management of patients with hepatobiliary diseases.

TIPS Is Not Associated with a Higher Risk of Developing HCC in Cirrhotic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background and Aims: The association between portal-systemic shunt and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development in patients who have cirrhosis is still controversial. This systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to systematically clarify the potential role of portal-systemic shunt in the development of HCC. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for potentially eligible literature. Meta-analysis with random-effects model was performed to combine the incidence rates of HCC after portal-systemic shunt. Finally, seven studies were included. In the present review, we mainly focused on 859 patients (365 in the transjugular intrahepatic portal-systemic shunt (TIPS) group and 494 in the non-TIPS group) from five studies to analyze incidence rates after TIPS. Results: At the end of follow-up, there were 66 (18%, 66/365) patients who developed HCC after TIPS intervention and 63 (13%, 63/494) patients who developed HCC after non-TIPS treatments. Pooled estimates with random-effects model did not demonstrate a significant increase of incidence of HCC after TIPS (risk ratio: 1.37 [confidence interval (CI): 0.96 to 1.97]; p = 0.08) compared with non-TIPS treatments. Subgroup analyses for those patients with transplanted liver also did not detect a significant difference between the TIPS group and non-TIPS group (risk ratio: 1.10 [CI: 0.59 to 2.07]; p = 0.75). Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that portal-systemic shunt is not associated with a higher risk of HCC development in cirrhotic patients.

Recommendations on the Diagnosis and Initial Management of Acute Variceal Bleeding and Hepatorenal Syndrome in Patients with Cirrhosis

Cirrhosis is a serious and life-threatening condition which imposes a significant socioeconomic burden on affected individuals and healthcare systems. Cirrhosis can result in portal hypertension, which may lead to major complications, including acute variceal bleeding and hepatorenal syndrome. Without prompt treatment, these complications may be life-threatening. Over the past 2 decades, new treatment modalities and treatment strategies have been introduced, which have improved patients' prognosis, but the initial management of these severe complications continues to present a challenge. The present recommendations aim to increase clinicians' knowledge on the importance of early diagnosis and treatment, and to provide evidence-based management strategies to potentially, further improve patient outcomes. Special attention was given to the role of terlipressin. A comprehensive non-systematic literature search was undertaken to evaluate the evidence for the diagnosis and initial management of acute variceal bleeding and hepatorenal syndrome in patients with cirrhosis. Recommendations on the diagnosis and initial management of acute variceal bleeding and hepatorenal syndrome in patients with cirrhosis have been developed based on the best available evidence and the expert opinion of the consensus panel following a comprehensive review of the available clinical data. Prompt identification and timely treatment of acute variceal bleeding and hepatorenal syndrome are essential to reduce the burden.

Update on management of gastric varices

Gastric varices (GV) have different physiology and clinical characteristics compared to oesophageal varices (OV). There is little information about the management of GV. Most part of the recommendations is extrapolated from studies where the majority of participants had OV. Thus, most recommendations lack of strong evidence. This is a comprehensive review on all aspects of management of GV, i.e., primary, secondary prophylaxis and management of acute bleeding. The papers on which international societies’ recommendations are based are scrutinised in this review and areas of research are identified.

Recent development of balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration

Gastric varices (GVs) are a major complication of portal hypertension in patients with liver cirrhosis. The mortality rate associated with the bleeding from GVs is not low. Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) was first introduced by Kanagawa et al. as a treatment for isolated GVs in 1994. It has been performed most frequently in Asia, especially in Japan. Ethanolamine oleate was the original sclerosant used in the therapy. Since the late 2000s, BRTO using sodium tetradecyl sulfate foam or polidocanol foam as a sclerosant has been performed in many countries other than Japan. Then, early in the 2010s, modified BRTO techniques including vascular plug-assisted retrograde transvenous obliteration and coil-assisted retrograde transvenous obliteration were developed as an alternative treatment for GVs. This article provides a historical overview of BRTO using various sclerosants and modified BRTO techniques, such as plug-assisted retrograde transvenous obliteration and coil-assisted retrograde transvenous obliteration.

Update on the management of gastrointestinal varices

Cirrhosis of liver is a major problem in the western world. Portal hypertension is a complication of cirrhosis and can lead to a myriad of pathology of which include the development of porto-systemic collaterals. Gastrointestinal varices are dilated submucosal veins, which often develop at sites near the formation of gastroesophageal collateral circulation. The incidence of varices is on the rise due to alcohol and obesity. The most significant complication of portal hypertension is life-threatening bleeding from gastrointestinal varices, which is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. In addition, this can cause a significant burden on the health care facility. Gastrointestinal varices can happen in esophagus, stomach or ectopic varices. There has been considerable progress made in the understanding of the natural history, pathophysiology and etiology of portal hypertension. Despite the development of endoscopic and medical treatments, early mortality due to variceal bleeding remains high due to significant illness of the patient. Recurrent variceal bleed is common and in some cases, there is refractory variceal bleed. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the management of gastrointestinal varices with an emphasis on endoscopic interventions, strategies to handle refractory variceal bleed and newer endoscopic treatment modalities. Early treatment and improved endoscopic techniques can help in improving morbidity and mortality.

Safety and Efficacy of a Novel Shunt Surgery Combined with Foam Sclerotherapy of Varices for Prehepatic Portal Hypertension: A Pilot Study

OBJECTIVES

This pilot study investigated the safety and efficacy of a novel shunt surgery combined with foam sclerotherapy of varices in patients with prehepatic portal hypertension.

METHODS

Twenty-seven patients who were diagnosed with prehepatic portal hypertension and underwent shunt surgeries were divided into three groups by surgery type: shunt surgery alone (Group A), shunt surgery and devascularization (Group B), and shunt surgery combined with foam sclerotherapy (Group C). Between-group differences in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, portal pressure decrease, postoperative complications, rebleeding rates, encephalopathy, mortality rates and remission of gastroesophageal varices were compared.

RESULTS

Groups A, B and C had similar operation times, intraoperative bleeding, and portal pressure decrease. The remission rates of varices differed significantly (p<0.001): one patient in Group A and 6 patients in Group B had partial response, and all 9 patients in Group C had remission (2 complete, 7 partial). Two Group A patients and one Group B patient developed recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding postoperatively within 12 months. No postoperative recurrence or bleeding was observed in Group C, and no sclerotherapy-related complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Shunt surgery combined with foam sclerotherapy obliterates varices more effectively than shunt surgery alone does, decreasing the risk of postoperative rebleeding from residual gastroesophageal varices. This novel surgery is safe and effective with good short-term outcomes.

Endoscopic treatment of esophagogastric varices: Problems and thoughts

Esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EVB) is a common digestive emergency, and it is usually severe and is associated with a high mortality. The American Association of Liver Diseases guidelines recommend endoscopic treatment as the first choice for acute EVB. Studies have shown that emergency endoscopic hemostasis can achieve a success rate of > 90% and thus reduce the incidence of early rebleeding and the mortality rate of patients. Endoscopic treatment mainly includes endoscopic variceal ligation, endoscopic injection sclerotherapy, tissue adhesive injection, and endoscopic therapy combined with other treatments. However, the therapeutic effect of endoscopic treatment is related to the operator's skill, portal pressure, collateral circulation, esophageal varices, and other factors. Therefore, endoscopic treatment is not indicated for all cases. In addition, endoscopic treatment may cause serious complications. Here we describe the problems and thoughts on endoscopic treatment of esophagogastric varices.

Endovascular Treatment for Variceal Hemorrhage: TIPS, BRTO, and Combined Approaches

Variceal hemorrhage is a feared complication of portal hypertension, with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Optimal management requires a thoughtful, multidisciplinary approach. In cases of refractory or recurrent esophageal hemorrhage, endovascular approaches such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) have a well-defined role. For hemorrhage related to gastric varices, the optimal treatment remains to be established; however, there is increasing adoption of balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO). This article will review the concept, history, patient selection, basic technique, and outcomes for TIPS, BRTO, and combined TIPS + BRTO procedures for variceal hemorrhage.

Endoscopic Cyanoacrylate Glue Injection in Management of Gastric Variceal Bleeding: US Tertiary Care Center Experience

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Although endoscopic cyanoacrylate glue injection (ECGI) is recommended as first-line treatment for bleeding gastric varices (GV) there is still limited experience with this method in the US. Our aim was to analyze our 10-year experience of ECGI for treatment and prophylaxis of gastric variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Records of patients undergoing ECGI of GV at our US tertiary care center between 6/2005 and 5/2015 were reviewed. Assessed outcomes were primary hemostasis, early rebleeding during hospitalization, recurrent bleeding during follow-up, eradication and recurrence of GV.

RESULTS

Prophylactic ECGI was performed in 16 patients with large GV. Eradication was achieved in 15 (94%). During the median follow-up of 27 (IQR 7-47) months, 4 patients (26.6%) had variceal bleeding; all were treated successfully with ECGI. Fifty-seven patients underwent ECGI for GV bleeding. Primary hemostasis was achieved in all. Early rebleeding occurred in 2 (3.5%) and durable hemostasis could not be achieved. Follow-up beyond initial hospitalization was available in 41 patients. Bleeding recurred in 8 (19.5%) patients during a median follow-up of 12 (IQR, 3-51) months. Eradication of GV was achieved in 92% of patients but recurrent varices were found in 44% during a median follow up period of 33 months.

CONCLUSION

ECGI is effective in achieving hemostasis of bleeding GV and their eradication. Recurrent bleeding and recurrence of varices after complete obliteration however are not infrequent and continued surveillance is advisable.

Prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices

Bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is a serious complication in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Although there has been significance improvement in the prognosis of variceal bleeding with advancement in diagnostic and therapeutic modalities for its management, mortality rate still remains high. Therefore, appropriate prevention and rapid, effective management of bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is very important. Recently, various studies about management of gastoesophageal varices, including prevention of development and aggravation of varices, prevention of first variceal bleeding, management of acute variceal bleeding, and prevention of variceal rebleeding, have been published. The present article reviews published articles and practice guidelines to present the most optimal management of patients with gastroesophageal varices.

Pharmacologic prevention of variceal bleeding and rebleeding

BACKGROUND

Variceal bleeding is a major complication of portal hypertension, which is associated with significant mortality. Moreover, patients surviving a variceal bleeding episode have very high risk of rebleeding, which is associated with mortality as high as that of the first bleed. Because of this, prevention of bleeding from gastroesophageal varices has been one of the main therapeutic goals since the advent of the first effective therapies for portal hypertension.

AIM

This review deals with the present day state-of-the-art pharmacological prevention of variceal bleeding in primary and secondary prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Pharmacological therapy aims to decrease portal pressure (PP) by acting on the pathophysiological mechanisms of portal hypertension such as increased hepatic vascular tone and splanchnic vasodilatation. Propranolol and nadolol block the beta-1 in the heart and the peripheral beta-2 adrenergic receptors. Beta-1 blockade of cardiac receptors reduces heart rate and cardiac output and subsequently decreases flow into splanchnic circulation. Beta-2 blockade leads to unopposed alpha-1 adrenergic activity that causes splanchnic vasoconstriction and reduction of portal inflow. Both effects contribute to reduction in PP. Carvedilol is more powerful in reducing hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) than traditional nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and achieves good hemodynamic response in nearly 75 % of cases. Simvastatin and atorvastatin improve endothelial dysfunction mainly by enhancing endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) expression and phosphorylation and NO production. In addition, statins deactivate hepatic stellate cells and ameliorate hepatic fibrogenesis. These effects cause a decrease in HVPG and improve liver microcirculation and hepatocyte perfusion in patients with cirrhosis. In addition, several promising drugs under development may change the management of portal hypertension in the coming years.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a background on the most important aspects of the treatment of portal hypertension in patients with compensated and decompensated liver cirrhosis. However, despite the great improvement in the prevention of variceal bleeding over the last years, further therapeutic options are needed.

Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension

Acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage is a dreaded complication of portal hypertension. Its management has evolved rapidly in recent years. Endoscopic therapy is often employed to arrest bleeding varices as well as to prevent early rebleeding. The combination of vasoconstrictor and endoscopic therapy is superior to vasoconstrictor or endoscopic therapy alone for control of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. After control of acute variceal bleeding, combination of banding ligation and beta-blockers is generally recommended to prevent variceal rebleeding. To prevent the catastrophic event of acute variceal bleeding, endoscopic banding ligation is an important tool in the prophylaxis of first bleeding. Endoscopic obturation with cyanoacrylate is usually utilized to arrest acute gastric variceal hemorrhage as well as to prevent rebleeding. It can be concluded that endoscopic therapies play a pivotal role in management of portal hypertensive bleeding.

Endoscopic Cyanoacrylate Injection with Post-injection Audible Doppler Assessment of Gastric Varices: A Single-Institution Experience

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gastric varices (GV) have higher rates of morbidity and mortality from hemorrhage than esophageal varices. Several studies have shown the safety and efficacy of cyanoacrylate (CA) injection for acute gastric variceal hemorrhage. We report data from our experience with CA injection for GV before and after routine use of post-injection audible Doppler assessment (ADA) for GV obturation and describe long-term outcomes after this therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients who had documented GV, underwent CA injection, and had at least 2 weeks of follow-up. We recorded and analyzed the survival and rebleeding rates with patient demographics, clinical data, and endoscopy findings between two groups of patients who were categorized by CA injection prior to and after inception of the ADA technique.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients were identified with 16 patients analyzed in a group where ADA was not used (Pre-ADA) and 55 analyzed where ADA was used (Post-ADA). No rebleeding events were observed within 1 week of initial CA injection. No embolic events were reported after any initial CA injection within 4 weeks. The rate of bleed-free survival at 1 year was 69.6% in the Pre-ADA group and 85.8% in the Post-ADA without statistical significance. The all-cause 1-year mortality was 13.8% in the Pre-ADA group and 10.7% in the Post-ADA group without statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

ADA of CA-injected GV does not appear to significantly affect adverse events or clinical outcomes; however, our findings are limited by small sample size and cohort proportions allowing for significant type II statistical error. Further prospective investigation is required to determine the impact of ADA on clinical outcomes after GV obturation.

TIPS versus endoscopic therapy for variceal rebleeding in cirrhosis: A meta-analysis update

Endoscopic therapy (ET) is most common method for preventing variceal bleeding in cirrhosis, but the outcomes are not perfect. Recently, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is introduced into clinical practice. However, the beneficial effects of TIPS compared to ET on cirrhotic patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of TIPS with those of the most frequently used ET for prevention of variceal rebleeding (VRB) in liver cirrhosis. The Pub-Med, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to February 2017. The primary study outcomes included the incidence of VRB, all-cause mortality, bleeding-related death, and the incidence of post-treatment hepatic encephalopathy (PTE). The odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled for dichotomous variables. Subgroup analyses were performed. Twenty-four studies were eligible and they included 1120 subjects treated with TIPS and 1065 subjects treated with ET. Although there was no significant difference in survival and PTE, TIPS was superior to ET in decreasing the incidence of VRB (OR=0.27; 95% CI, 0.19-0.39, P<0.00001), and decreasing the incidence of bleeding-related death (OR=0.21; 95% CI, 0.13-0.32, P<0.00001). Subgroup analysis found a lower mortality (OR=0.48; 95% CI, 0.23-0.97; P=0.04) without any increased incidence of PTE (OR=1.37; 95% CI, 0.75-2.50; P=0.31) in the studies of a greater proportion (≥40%) of patients with Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis receiving TIPS, and TIPS with covered stent did not increase the risk of PTE compared to ET (OR=1.52, 95% CI =0.82-2.80, P=0.18). It was concluded that TIPS with covered stent might be considered the preferred choice of therapy in patients with severe liver disease for secondary prophylaxis.

Probiotics for Gastrointestinal Conditions: A Summary of the Evidence

Probiotics contain microorganisms, most of which are bacteria similar to the beneficial bacteria that occur naturally in the human gut. Probiotics have been widely studied in a variety of gastrointestinal diseases. The most-studied species include Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Saccharomyces. However, a lack of clear guidelines on when to use probiotics and the most effective probiotic for different gastrointestinal conditions may be confusing for family physicians and their patients. Probiotics have an important role in the maintenance of immunologic equilibrium in the gastrointestinal tract through the direct interaction with immune cells. Probiotic effectiveness can be species-, dose-, and disease-specific, and the duration of therapy depends on the clinical indication. There is high-quality evidence that probiotics are effective for acute infectious diarrhea, antibiotic-associated diarrhea, Clostridium difficile- associated diarrhea, hepatic encephalopathy, ulcerative colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, functional gastrointestinal disorders, and necrotizing enterocolitis. Conversely, there is evidence that probiotics are not effective for acute pancreatitis and Crohn disease. Probiotics are safe for infants, children, adults, and older patients, but caution is advised in immunologically vulnerable populations.