Banding ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prevention in oesophageal varices in adults

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

Guidelines for the Management of Esophagogastric Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Portal Hypertension

To standardize the diagnosis, treatment, and management of esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EVB) in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension, the Chinese Society of Hepatology, the Chinese Society of Gastroenterology, and the Chinese Society of Digestive Endoscopy of the Chinese Medical Association brought together relevant experts, reviewed the latest national and international progress in clinical research on EVB in cirrhotic portal hypertension, and followed evidence-based medicine to update the Guidelines on the Management of EVB in Cirrhotic Portal Hypertension. The guidelines provide recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and management of EVB in cirrhotic portal hypertension and with the aim to improve the level of clinical treatment of EVB in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension.

Compensated liver cirrhosis: Natural course and disease-modifying strategies

Compensated liver cirrhosis (CLC) is defined as cirrhosis with one or more decompensating events, such as ascites, variceal haemorrhage, or hepatic encephalopathy. Patients with CLC are largely asymptomatic with preserved hepatic function. The transition from CLC to decompensated cirrhosis occurs as a result of a complex interaction between multiple predisposing and precipitating factors. The first decompensation event in CLC patients is considered a significant turning point in the progression of cirrhosis, as it signals a drastic decline in median survival rates from 10-12 years to only 1-2 years. Furthermore, early cirrhosis has the potential to regress as liver fibrosis is a dynamic condition. With the advent of effective non-invasive tools for detecting hepatic fibrosis, more and more patients with CLC are currently being recognised. This offers clinicians a unique opportunity to properly manage such patients in order to achieve cirrhosis regression or, at the very least, prevent its progression. There are numerous emerging approaches for preventing or delaying decompensation in CLC patients. A growing body of evidence indicates that treating the underlying cause can lead to cirrhosis regression, and the use of non-selective beta-blockers can prevent decompensation by lowering portal hypertension. Additionally, addressing various cofactors (such as obesity, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, and alcoholism) and precipitating factors (such as infection, viral hepatitis, and hepatotoxic drugs) that have a detrimental impact on the natural course of cirrhosis may benefit patients with CLC. However, high-quality data must be generated through well-designed and adequately powered randomised clinical trials to validate these disease-modifying techniques for CLC patients. This article discussed the natural history of CLC, risk factors for its progression, and therapeutic approaches that could alter the trajectory of CLC evolution and improve outcomes.

Nonselective beta-blocker use is associated with increased hepatic encephalopathy-related readmissions in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a neurocognitive condition in cirrhosis leading to frequent hospitalizations. Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment in cirrhotic patients. We hypothesized that since NSBBs decrease cardiac output and portal flow, the decreased metabolic filtering process of liver parenchyma may lead to increased HE-related hospitalizations.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of NSBB administration on HE-related readmissions in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we included 393 patients admitted to Baylor University Medical Center for liver-related portal hypertension indications between January 2013 and July 2018. Independent predictors of the first HE-related readmissions were identified using Cox proportional hazards analysis. The cumulative incidence of the first HE-related readmissions between patients receiving NSBBs and not receiving NSBBs was examined using Fine-Gray modeling to account for the competing risk of death or liver transplantation.

RESULTS

The mean age was 58.1 ± 10.2 years and most patients fell into Child class C (49.1%) or B (43.8%). The median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium score was 22 (IQR: 11). The cumulative incidence of the first HE-related readmissions was significantly higher in patients taking NSBBs compared to patients not receiving NSBBs (71.8% vs 41.8%, P < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, after adjusting for demographics, markers of liver disease severity, selective beta-blocker, lactulose and rifaximin use, NSBB use [Hazard ratio: 1.74 (95%CI: 1.29-2.34)] was independently associated with the first HE-related readmissions over a median follow-up of 3.8 years.

CONCLUSION

NSBB use is independently associated with increased HE-related readmissions in patients with cirrhosis, regardless of liver disease severity.

Non-selective beta-blockers in patients with ascites: The complex interplay among the liver, kidney and heart

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are the cornerstone of the primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients. They additionally prevent ascites development and death in compensated patients with clinically significant portal hypertension. After ascites onset, NSBBs remain beneficial for preventing further decompensations. However, as the cirrhosis progresses, the inflammation increases, systemic vasodilatation worsens, ascites turns refractory and cardiodynamic equilibrium becomes extremely fragile. In this scenario, NSBBs can critically impair the cardiac reserve and facilitate a haemodynamic breakdown, imperilling renal perfusion. Consequently, NSBB treatment should be carefully monitored or even avoided in such patients, and other options for portal hypertension management should be considered. In the present review, we explore the effects of NSBBs in patients with ascites and discuss the complex interplay among their hepatic, systemic and renal haemodynamic effects in this scenario.

Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis: A comparison of different strategies

Patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices bleed at a yearly rate of 5%-15%, and, when variceal hemorrhage develops, mortality reaches 20%. Patients are deemed at high risk of bleeding when they present with medium or large-sized varices, when they have red signs on varices of any size and when they are classified as Child-Pugh C and have varices of any size. In order to avoid variceal bleeding and death, individuals with cirrhosis at high risk of bleeding must undergo primary prophylaxis, for which currently recommended strategies are the use of traditional non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) (i.e., propranolol or nadolol), carvedilol (a NSBB with additional alpha-adrenergic blocking effect) or endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL). The superiority of one of these alternatives over the others is controversial. While EVL might be superior to pharmacological therapy regarding the prevention of the first bleeding episode, either traditional NSBBs or carvedilol seem to play a more prominent role in mortality reduction, probably due to their capacity of preventing other complications of cirrhosis through the decrease in portal hypertension. A sequential strategy, in which patients unresponsive to pharmacological therapy would be submitted to endoscopic treatment, or the combination of pharmacological and endoscopic strategies might be beneficial and deserve further investigation.

Clinical algorithms for the prevention of variceal bleeding and rebleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis

Portal hypertension (PH), a common complication of liver cirrhosis, results in development of esophageal varices. When esophageal varices rupture, they cause significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding with mortality rates up to 20% despite state-of-the-art treatment. Thus, prophylactic measures are of utmost importance to improve outcomes of patients with PH. Several high-quality studies have demonstrated that non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) are effective for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. In secondary prophylaxis, a combination of NSBB + EBL should be routinely used. Once esophageal varices develop and variceal bleeding occurs, standardized treatment algorithms should be followed to minimize bleeding-associated mortality. Special attention should be paid to avoidance of overtransfusion, early initiation of vasoconstrictive therapy, prophylactic antibiotics and early endoscopic therapy. Pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt should be used in all Child C10-C13 patients experiencing variceal bleeding, and potentially in Child B patients with active bleeding at endoscopy. The use of carvedilol, safety of NSBBs in advanced cirrhosis (i.e. with refractory ascites) and assessment of hepatic venous pressure gradient response to NSBB is discussed. In the present review, we give an overview on the rationale behind the latest guidelines and summarize key papers that have led to significant advances in the field.

Treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS software, using Bayesian methods, and calculated the differences in treatments using odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed also the direct comparisons from RCTs using the same codes and the same technical details.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding in people with oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years. There are several different treatments to prevent bleeding, including: beta-blockers, endoscopic sclerotherapy, and variceal band ligation. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers to December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previous bleeding from oesophageal varices and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation or previously received prophylactic treatment for oesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed the direct comparisons from randomised clinical trials using the same codes and the same technical details.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 randomised clinical trials (6653 participants) in the review. Sixty trials (6212 participants) provided data for one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those at high risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices. The follow-up in the trials that reported outcomes ranged from 6 months to 60 months. All but one of the trials were at high risk of bias. The interventions compared included beta-blockers, no active intervention, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates, nitrates, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, and portocaval shunt. Overall, 21.2% of participants who received non-selective beta-blockers ('beta-blockers') - the reference treatment (chosen because this was the most common treatment compared in the trials) - died during 8-month to 60-month follow-up. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates all had lower mortality versus no active intervention (beta-blockers: HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.67; direct comparison HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.42 to 0.83; 10 trials, 1200 participants; variceal band ligation: HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.74; direct comparison HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.12 to 2.14; 3 trials, 355 participants; sclerotherapy: HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.85; direct comparison HR 0.61, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.90; 18 trials, 1666 participants; beta-blockers plus nitrates: HR 0.41, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.85; no direct comparison). No trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation had a higher number of serious adverse events (number of events) than beta-blockers (rate ratio 10.49, 95% CrI 2.83 to 60.64; 1 trial, 168 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers plus nitrates had a higher number of 'any adverse events (number of participants)' than beta-blockers alone (OR 3.41, 95% CrI 1.11 to 11.28; 1 trial, 57 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, adverse events (number of events) were higher in sclerotherapy than in beta-blockers (rate ratio 2.49, 95% CrI 1.53 to 4.22; direct comparison rate ratio 2.47, 95% CrI 1.27 to 5.06; 2 trials, 90 participants), and in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.08 to 2.76; 1 trial, 140 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was lower in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.04 to 0.71; 1 trial, 173 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was higher in nitrates than beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 6.40, 95% CrI 1.58 to 47.42; 1 trial, 52 participants). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates may decrease mortality compared to no intervention in people with high-risk oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis and no previous history of bleeding. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in a higher number of serious adverse events than beta-blockers. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of beta-blockers versus variceal band ligation on variceal bleeding. The evidence also indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in most of the remaining comparisons.

Congenital heart disease-associated liver disease: a narrative review

Congenital heart diseases (CHD) can be associated with liver dysfunction. The cause for liver impairment can result out of a wide spectrum of different causes, including liver congestion, hypoxemia or low cardiac output. Fortunately, most CHD show a good long-term outcome from a cardiac perspective, but great attention should be paid on non-cardiac health problems that develop frequently in patients suffering from CHD. The treatment of liver dysfunction in CHD requires a close multidisciplinary management in a vulnerable patient collective. Unfortunately, structured recommendations on the management of liver dysfunction in patients with CHD are scarce. The objective of this review is to provide insights on the pathophysiology and etiologies of liver dysfunction as one of the most relevant non-cardiac problems related to CHD. Furthermore, we advise here on the management of liver disease in CHD with special attention on assessment of liver dysfunction, management of portal hypertension as well as on surveillance and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A multidisciplinary perspective may help to optimize morbidity and mortality in the long-term course in these patients. However, as evidence is low in many aspects, we encourage the scientific community to perform prospective studies to gain more insights in the treatment of liver dysfunction in patients with CHD.

Secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for secondary prevention according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and a previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.

Band ligation versus sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including bleeding (haemorrhage) from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal bleeding commonly occurs in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. Prevention is, therefore, important. Randomised clinical trials have shown that non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal band ligation decrease the incidence of variceal bleeding in adults. In children and adolescents, band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as primary prophylaxis alternatives for oesophageal variceal bleeding. However, it is unknown whether these interventions are of benefit or harm when used for primary prophylaxis in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of band ligation compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and two other databases (April 2020). We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications, and we also handsearched abstract books of the two main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conferences from January 2008 to December 2019. We also searched clinicaltrials.gov, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) for ongoing clinical trials. We imposed no language or document type restrictions on our search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We aimed to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status, to assess the benefits and harms of band ligation versus sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. If the search for randomised clinical trials retrieved quasi-randomised and other observational studies, then we read them through to extract information on harm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology to perform this systematic review. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were oesophageal variceal bleeding and adverse events not considered serious. We used the intention-to-treat principle. We analysed data using Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

One conference abstract, describing a feasibility multi-centre randomised clinical trial, fulfilled our review inclusion criteria. We judged the trial at overall high risk of bias. This trial was conducted in three hospital centres in the United Kingdom. The aim of the trial was to determine the feasibility and safety of further larger randomised clinical trials of prophylactic band ligation versus no active treatment in children with portal hypertension and large oesophageal varices. Twelve children received prophylactic band ligation and 10 children received no active treatment. There was no information on the age of the children included, or about the diagnosis of any child included. All children were followed up for at least six months. Mortality was 8% (1/12) in the band ligation group versus 0% (0/10) in the no active intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 2.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 56.25; very low certainty of evidence). The abstract did not report when the death occurred, but we assume it happened between the six-month follow-up and one year. No child (0%) in the band ligation group developed adverse events (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.25; very low certainty of evidence) but one child out of 10 (10%) in the no active intervention group developed idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura. One child out of 12 (8%) in the band ligation group underwent liver transplantation versus none in the no active intervention group (0%) (RR 2.54, 95% CI 0.11 to 56.25; very low certainty of evidence). The trial reported no other serious adverse events or liver-related morbidity. Quality of life was not reported. Oesophageal variceal bleeding occurred in 8% (1/12) of the children in the band ligation group versus 30% (3/10) of the children in the no active intervention group (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.27; very low certainty of evidence). No adverse events considered non-serious were reported. Two children were lost to follow-up by one-year. Ten children in total completed the trial at two-year follow-up. There was no information on funding.  We found two observational studies on endoscopic variceal ligation when searching for randomised trials. One found no harm, and the other reported E nterobacter cloacae septicaemia in one child and mild, transient, upper oesophageal sphincter stenosis in another. We did not assess these studies for risk of bias. We did not find any ongoing randomised clinical trials of interest to our review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence, obtained from only one feasibility randomised clinical trial at high risk of bias, is very scanty. It is very uncertain about whether prophylactic band ligation versus sham or no (active) intervention may affect mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, or oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with portal hypertension and large oesophageal varices. We have no data on quality of life. No adverse events considered non-serious were reported. The results presented in the trial need to be interpreted with caution. In addition, the highly limited data cover only part of our research question; namely, children with portal hypertension and large oesophageal varices. Data on children with portal vein thrombosis are lacking. Larger randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits and harms of band ligation compared with sham treatment for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are needed. The trials should include important clinical outcomes such as death, quality of life, failure to control bleeding, and adverse events.

Interventions for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis is an autosomal recessive inherited defect in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene resulting in abnormal regulation of salt and water movement across the membranes. In the liver this leads to focal biliary fibrosis resulting in progressive portal hypertension and end-stage liver disease in some individuals. This can be asymptomatic, but may lead to splenomegaly and hypersplenism, development of varices and variceal bleeding, and ascites; it has negative impact on overall nutritional status and respiratory function in this population. Prognosis is poor once significant portal hypertension is established. The role and outcome of various interventions for managing advanced liver disease (non-malignant end stage disease) in people with cystic fibrosis is currently unidentified. This is an updated version of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To review and assess the efficacy of currently available treatment options for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in children and adults with cystic fibrosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 19 November 2019. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and online trials registries. Date of last search: 01 January 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any published and unpublished randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials of advanced liver disease in cystic fibrosis with cirrhosis or liver failure, portal hypertension or variceal bleeding (or both).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors independently examined titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant trials, but none were eligible for inclusion in this review.

MAIN RESULTS

A comprehensive search of the literature did not identify any published eligible randomised controlled trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In order to develop the best source of evidence, there is a need to undertake randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in adults and children with cystic fibrosis.

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.

Sclerotherapy versus sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including bleeding (haemorrhage) from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal bleeding commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Therefore, prevention is important. Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in adults is the established standard of care because of the results of numerous randomised clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of non-selective beta-blockers or endoscopic variceal ligation in decreasing the incidence of variceal bleeding. In children, band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as alternatives for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding. However, it is unknown whether those treatments are of benefit or harm when used for primary prophylaxis in children.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Elsevier, and two other registers in February 2019. We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications, and performed a manual search of the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conference (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstracts from January 2008 to December 2018. We searched four registries for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status assessing sclerotherapy versus sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology to perform this systematic review. We used the intention-to-treat principle to analyse outcome data, and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence per outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We found only one randomised clinical trial that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The trial was at high risk of bias. The trial included 108 Brazilian children with median age of 4.3 years (range 11 months to 13 years). Fifty-six children were randomised to prophylactic sclerotherapy (ethanolamine oleate 2%) and 52 children to no intervention (control). Children were followed up for a median of 4.5 years. Eight children (six from the sclerotherapy group versus two from the control group) dropped out before the end of the trial. The follow-up was from 18 months to eight years. Mortality was 16% (9/56 children) in the sclerotherapy group versus 15% (8/52 children) in the control group (risk ration (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 2.50; very low-certainty evidence). Upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 21% (12/56) of the children in the sclerotherapy group versus 46% (24/52) in the control group (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.83; very low-certainty evidence). There were more children with congestive hypertensive gastropathy in the sclerotherapy group than in the control group (14% (8/56) versus 6% (3/52); RR 2.48, 95% CI 0.69 to 8.84; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of gastric varices was similar between the sclerotherapy group and the control group (11% (6/56) versus 10% (5/52); RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.43; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of bleeding from gastric varices was higher in the sclerotherapy group than in the control group (4% (3/56) versus 0% (0/52); RR 6.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 123.06; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not assess health-related quality of life. Oesophageal variceal bleeding occurred in 5% (3/56) of the children in the sclerotherapy group versus 40% (21/52) of the children in the control group (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.42; very low-certainty evidence). The most prevalent complications (defined as non-serious) were pain and fever after the procedure, which promptly resolved with analgesics. However, numerical data on the frequency of these adverse events and their occurrences in the two groups were lacking. No funding information was provided. We found no ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence, obtained from one randomised clinical trial at high risk of bias, is very uncertain on whether sclerotherapy has an influence on mortality and if it may decrease first upper gastrointestinal or oesophageal variceal bleeding in children. The evidence is very uncertain on whether sclerotherapy has an influence on congestive hypertensive gastropathy, incidence on gastric varices, and incidence of bleeding from gastric varices. Health-related quality of life was not measured. There were no serious events caused by sclerotherapy, and analysis of non-serious adverse events could not be performed due to lack of numerical data. The GRADE assessment of each outcome showed a very low-certainty evidence. The results of the trial need to be interpreted with caution. Larger randomised clinical trials, following the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements, assessing the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are needed. The trials should include important clinical outcomes such as death, failure to control bleeding, and adverse events.

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.

Use of Nonselective β-Blockers in Patients With End-Stage Liver Disease and Select Complications

Objective: To review the literature and recommendations for nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) in the setting of variceal bleeding prophylaxis and decompensated liver disease. Data Sources: Literature search of MEDLINE was performed (1988 to October 2019) using the following search terms: cirrhosis, advanced cirrhosis, β-blocker, decompensation, prophylaxis. Abstracts, peer-reviewed publications, clinical practice guidelines, and product monographs were reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Relevant English language studies and those conducted in humans were considered for analysis and inclusion. Data Synthesis: Evidence that suggests that NSBBs are harmful in advanced cirrhosis is overshadowed by confounding variables and small patient populations. The majority of the available evidence suggests neutral or beneficial effects on mortality with continuation of NSBBs despite liver disease progression. Based on the available literature, guidelines, and expert consensuses, NSBBs can be considered within this patient population and may have a positive impact on the majority of these patients. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review summarizes current place in therapy for NSBBs in the setting of cirrhosis and variceal bleeding prophylaxis. It also includes a discussion of the literature for use of NSBBs within the setting of different acute decompensations in which the data and recommendations for use are less clear. Conclusions: Recent evidence shows neutral or positive results for NSBB use in particular decompensation subgroups, which suggests that NSBBs can be used cautiously with close monitoring in patients with advanced cirrhosis. Questions still remain regarding optimal agent and dose and whether agents can be safely restarted after an acute decompensation episode.

Band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including haemorrhage from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal haemorrhage commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Prevention is therefore important. Following numerous randomised clinical trials demonstrating efficacy of non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation in decreasing the incidence of variceal haemorrhage, primary prophylaxis of variceal haemorrhage in adults has become the established standard of care. Hence, band ligation and beta-blockers have been proposed to be used as primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of band ligation compared with any type of beta-blocker for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (February 2019), CENTRAL (December 2018), PubMed (December 2018), Embase Ovid (December 2018), LILACS (Bireme; January 2019), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science; December 2018). We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications and performed a manual search from the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conferences (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from 2009 to 2018. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. We planned to also include quasi-randomised and other observational studies retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials for report of harm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials using standard Cochrane methodologies.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised clinical trials assessing band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. There is a need for well-designed, adequately powered randomised clinical trials to assess the benefits and harms of band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. Those randomised clinical trials should include patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality, failure to control bleeding, and adverse events.

Band ligation versus no intervention for primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

The presence of oesophageal varices is associated with the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopic variceal ligation is used to prevent this occurrence but the ligation procedure may be associated with complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of band ligation versus no intervention for primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 9 February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing band ligation verus no intervention regardless of publication status, blinding, or language in the analyses of benefits and harms, and observational studies in the assessment of harms. Included participants had cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no previous history of variceal bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors extracted data independently. The primary outcome measures were all-cause mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and I² values as a marker of heterogeneity. In addition, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTTB) for the primary outcomes . We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains; determined the certainty of the evidence using GRADE; and conducted sensitivity analyses including Trial Sequential Analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised clinical trials involving 637 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One of the trials included an additional small number of participants (< 10% of the total) with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension/portal vein block. We classified one trial as at low risk of bias for the outcome, mortality and high risk of bias for the remaining outcomes; the five remaining trials were at high risk of bias for all outcomes. We downgraded the evidence to moderate certainty due to the bias risk. We gathered data on all primary outcomes from all trials. Seventy-one of 320 participants allocated to band ligation compared to 129 of 317 participants allocated to no intervention died (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70; I² = 0%; NNTTB = 6 persons). In addition, band ligation was associated with reduced risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 61%; NNTTB = 5 persons), serious adverse events (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 44%; NNTTB = 4 persons), and variceal bleeding (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.69; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 56%; NNTTB = 5 persons). The non-serious adverse events reported in association with band ligation included oesophageal ulceration, dysphagia, odynophagia, retrosternal and throat pain, heartburn, and fever, and in the one trial involving participants with either small or large varices, the incidence of non-serious side effects in the banding group was much higher in those with small varices, namely ulcers: small versus large varices 30.5% versus 8.7%; heartburn 39.2% versus 17.4%. No trials reported on health-related quality of life.Two trials did not receive support from pharmaceutical companies; the remaining four trials did not provide information on this issue.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found moderate-certainty evidence that, in patients with cirrhosis, band ligation of oesophageal varices reduces mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, variceal bleeding, and serious adverse events compared to no intervention. It is unlikely that further trials of band ligation versus no intervention would be considered ethical.

Carvedilol vs endoscopic variceal ligation for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Variceal hemorrhage is associated with high mortality and is the cause of death for 20–30% of patients with cirrhosis. Nonselective β blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) are recommended for primary prevention of variceal bleeding in patients with medium to large esophageal varices. Meanwhile, combination of EVL and NSBBs is the recommended approach for the secondary prevention. Carvedilol has greater efficacy than other NSBBs as it decreases intrahepatic resistance. We hypothesized that there was no difference between carvedilol and EVL intervention for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis patients.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of carvedilol compared to EVL for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients

METHODS

We searched relevant literatures in major journal databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) from March to August 2018. Patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, regardless of aetiology and severity, with or without a history of variceal bleeding, and aged ≥ 18 years old were included in this review. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of carvedilol and that of EVL for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding and mortality in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension were considered, irrespective of publication status, year of publication, and language.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included. In four trials assessing the primary prevention, no significant difference was found on the events of variceal bleeding (RR: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.37-1.49), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.10, 95%CI: 0.76-1.58), and bleeding-related mortality (RR: 1.02, 95%CI: 0.34-3.10) in patients who were treated with carvedilol compared to EVL. In three trials assessing secondary prevention, there was no difference between two interventions for the incidence of rebleeding (RR: 1.10, 95%CI: 0.75-1.61). The fixed-effect model showed that, compared to EVL, carvedilol decreased all-cause mortality by 49% (RR: 0.51, 95%CI: 0.33-0.79), with little or no evidence of heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol had similar efficacy to EVL in preventing the first variceal bleeding in cirrhosis patients with esophageal varices. It was superior to EVL alone for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in regard to all-cause mortality reduction.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of carvedilol versus variceal band ligation in primary prevention of variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis (CALIBRE trial)

Introduction

Liver cirrhosis is the fifth largest cause of adult deaths, and a major complication, variceal bleeding is associated with a 1-year mortality of 40%. There is uncertainty on the first-line therapy for prevention of variceal bleeding owing to a lack of adequately powered trials comparing non-selective beta blockers, in particular carvedilol, with variceal band ligation.

Methods and analysis

CALIBRE is a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled, open-label trial with an internal pilot. The two interventions are carvedilol 12.5 mg od or variceal band ligation (VBL). Patients with liver cirrhosis and medium to large oesophageal varices that have never bled are eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome is any variceal bleeding within 1 year of randomisation. Secondary endpoints include time to variceal bleed, mortality, transplant-free survival, adverse events, complications of cirrhosis, health-related quality of life, use of healthcare resources, patient preference and use of alternative or crossover therapies. The sample size is 2630 patients over a 4-year recruitment period, across 66 hospitals in the UK.

Ethics and dissemination

The study has been approved by a National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (REC) (reference number 18/NE/0296). The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. Participants will be informed via a link to a preview of the publication. A lay summary will also be provided via email or posted to participants prior to publication (ISRCTN reference number: 73887615).

Carvedilol vs endoscopic band ligation for the prevention of variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Variceal hemorrhage is the primary driver of mortality in patients with portal hypertension. Recent guidelines recommended that patients with esophageal varices should receive endoscopic band ligation (EBL) or carvedilol as prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. Several clinical trials have compared carvedilol use with EBL intervention, yielding controversial results. The present study aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the benefits and harms of carvedilol vs EBL for the prevention of variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Studies were searched on Pubmed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane library databases up to August 2018. Main outcomes in selected studies (variceal bleeding, all-cause deaths, bleeding-related deaths, and adverse events) were pooled into a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were identified in this meta-analysis, including a total of 703 patients. A total of 359 patients were randomized to carvedilol group and 354 were randomized to EBL group. No significant difference in variceal bleeding was observed between carvedilol use and EBL groups (relative ratio [RR] =0.86, 95% CI =0.60-1.23, I ²=11%), without publication bias. No significant difference was found neither for all-cause deaths (RR =0.82, 95% CI =0.44-1.53, I ²=66%) nor for bleeding-related deaths (RR =0.85, 95% CI =0.39-1.87, I ²=42%) in four included studies. Moreover, no reduced trend was observed toward adverse events in carvedilol group compared with that in EBL group (RR =1.32, 95% CI =0.75-2.31, I ²=81%).

CONCLUSION

There is no significant difference between carvedilol use and EBL intervention for the prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patient with esophageal varices. Large-scale clinical trials are further needed to make a confirmed conclusion.

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.

Endoscopic treatments for esophageal gastric varices bleeding

Esophageal gastric varices bleeding (EVB) is a common complication of cirrhosis with high mortality. Endoscopic treatment has been widely used in clinical practice and is an important means to prevent and treat varices bleeding with remarkable curative effect, greatly improving the survival rate of patients. The esophagus is mainly supplied by the left gastric vein, most of which enters the varicose vein through the cardia from the anterior branch, and some of which is accompanied by the paraesophageal vein. The fundus of the stomach is supplied mostly by the left gastric vein and a small part by the short gastric system. This article reviews the current status on endoscopic treatments for EVB.

Removal of Esophageal Variceal Bands to Salvage Complete Esophageal Obstruction

Esophageal varices develop in almost half of the patients with cirrhosis, and variceal hemorrhage constitutes an ominous sign with an increased risk of mortality. Variceal banding is considered an effective and mostly safe measure for primary and secondary prophylaxis. Although adverse events related to banding including dysphagia, stricture formation, bleeding, and ligation-induced ulcers have been described, complete esophageal obstruction is rare, with only 10 reported cases in the literature. Among those cases, 6 were managed conservatively; 1 patient had esophageal intraluminal dissection from an attempt to remove the bands using biopsy forceps but ultimately recovered with conservative management. Three patients developed strictures following removal of the bands, requiring repeated sessions of dilation therapy. We report on a patient who developed absolute dysphagia and complete esophageal obstruction after variceal banding. We successfully used the endoloop cutter hook to release the bands intact and restore luminal integrity.

Clinical Assessment and Management of Portal Hypertension

The development of portal hypertension in a patient with cirrhosis portends a poor prognosis. Untreated or progressive portal hypertension has serious clinical outcomes, which are often fatal. It is important to recognize portal hypertension early to delay progression and to treat complications of portal hypertension as they arise. This review will focus on the clinical assessment and management of portal hypertension.

The Role of Therapeutic Endoscopy in Patients With Cirrhosis-Related Causes of Gastrointestinal Bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article aims to review current therapeutic endoscopic treatments available for the management of gastrointestinal bleeding related to cirrhosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Endoscopic band ligation is an effective treatment for primary prophylaxis, acute bleeding, and secondary prophylaxis of esophageal varices as well as for acute bleeding and secondary prophylaxis of select gastric varices. Sclerotherapy is a treatment option for acute bleeding and secondary prophylaxis of esophageal varices when band ligation is technically difficult. Cyanoacrylate glue injection is an effective treatment for acute bleeding of gastric and ectopic varices. Argon plasma coagulation is first-line and radiofrequency ablation is second-line treatment for chronic bleeding secondary to gastric antral vascular ectasia. There are a variety of endoscopic treatment modalities for cirrhosis-related gastrointestinal bleeding, and the appropriate therapy depends on the location of the bleed, history or presence of acute bleeding, and risk factors for intervention-related adverse events.

Managing portal hypertension in patients with liver cirrhosis

Portal hypertension is one cause and a part of a dynamic process triggered by chronic liver disease, mostly induced by alcohol or incorrect nutrition and less often by viral infections and autoimmune or genetic disease. Adequate staging - continuously modified by current knowledge - should guide the prevention and treatment of portal hypertension with defined endpoints. The main goals are interruption of etiology and prevention of complications followed, if necessary, by treatment of these. For the past few decades, shunts, mostly as intrahepatic stent bypass between portal and hepatic vein branches, have played an important role in the prevention of recurrent bleeding and ascites formation, although their impact on survival remains ambiguous. Systemic drugs, such as non-selective beta-blockers, statins, or antibiotics, reduce portal hypertension by decreasing intrahepatic resistance or portal tributary blood flow or by blunting inflammatory stimuli inside and outside the liver. Here, the interactions among the gut, liver, and brain are increasingly examined for new therapeutic options. There is no general panacea. The interruption of initiating factors is key. If not possible or if not possible in a timely manner, combined approaches should receive more attention before considering liver transplantation.

New Developments in Managing Variceal Bleeding

Liver cirrhosis is the end stage of chronic liver disease, independent of etiology, and is characterized by accumulation of fibrotic tissue and conversion of the normal liver parenchyma into abnormal regenerative nodules. Complications include portal hypertension (PH) with gastroesophageal varices, ascites, hepatorenal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, bacteremia, and hypersplenism. The most life-threatening complication of liver cirrhosis is acute variceal bleeding (AVB) which is associated with increased mortality that, despite recent progress in management, is still around 20% at 6 weeks. Combined treatment with vasoactive drugs, prophylactic antibiotics, and endoscopic techniques is the recommended standard of care for patients with acute variceal bleeding. There are many promising new modalities including the combination of coil and glue injection for management of bleeding or non-bleeding gastric varices and hemostatic powder application, that requires minimal expertise, when performed early after admission of a cirrhotic patient with AVB and overt hematemesis acting as a bridge therapy till definitive endoscopic therapy can be performed in hemodynamically stable conditions and without acute bleeding.

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.

Traditional and cumulative meta-analysis: Chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone for resectable esophageal carcinoma

The role of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRTS) compared with surgery alone (SA) for resectable esophageal carcinoma has been established by several randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The present study aimed to investigate the difference in survival between the two treatments by a review of meta-analyses. Related research indicators were extracted from RCTs investigating CRTS or SA for resectable esophageal carcinoma by searching electronic databases for eligible articles. Outcomes were synthesized by adopting a fixed- or random-effects model with 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 22 RCTs including 3,419 patients were selected. The odds ratio (OR) (95% CI, P-value), expressed as CRTS vs. SA, was 1.06 (0.94-1.19, P=0.348) for 1-year overall survival rate (OSR1y), 1.38 (1.20-1.58, P<0.001) for 3-year overall survival rate (OSR3y), and 1.42 (1.22-1.66, P<0.001) for 5-year overall survival rate (OSR5y). The R0 resection rate increased in patients treated by CRTS (OR=2.76, 95% CI: 2.15-3.53, P<0.001). CRTS lowered the locoregional cancer recurrence (OR=0.49, 95% CI: 0.36-6.65, P<0.001) and distant metastasis rate (OR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.60-0.97, P=0.02). However, the incidence of postoperative mortality was similar between the two groups (OR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.72-1.32, P=0.87). The subgroup analysis revealed that OSR3y and OSR5y for Asian, European and American populations were significantly higher in the CRTS group compared with those in the SA group (P<0.05). When comparing the OSR1y between the two groups for patients in all three continents, there was no significant difference (P>0.05). Histological subgroup analysis indicated that patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma may benefit from CRTS in terms of OSR1y (OR=1.55, 95% CI: 1.09-2.20, P=0.01), OSR3y (OR=1.77, 95% CI: 1.34-2.36, P<0.0001) and OSR5y (OR=1.92, 95% CI: 1.34-2.75, P=0.0004). The pooled OR of squamous cell carcinoma in terms of OSR3y and OSR5y between the two groups was 1.57 (95% CI: 1.21-2.04, P=0.0006) and 1.69 (95% CI: 1.32-2.16, P<0.0001), respectively, but there was no statistical difference in terms of OSR1y (OR=1.13, 95% CI: 0.88-1.45, P=0.35). Thus, neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery may improve long-term survival and surgical parameters, and reduce locoregional cancer recurrence and distant metastasis.

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.

Efficacy of carvedilol versus propranolol versus variceal band ligation for primary prevention of variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Band ligation and propranolol are the current therapies for primary prevention of variceal bleeding. Carvedilol is a rising nonselective beta-blocker used for reducing portal pressure with favorable outcome. The aim of this study to assess the efficacy of carvedilol, propranolol, and band ligation for primary prevention of variceal bleeding based on the effect of each regimen on progression of Child score and portal hypertensive gastropathy after 1 year.

METHODS

The study included 264 cirrhotic patients with medium/large-sized varices who were candidates for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. Patients were randomly divided into three groups: group I: band ligation; group II: propranolol; group III: carvedilol.

RESULTS

Group I showed higher success rate of 75 %, followed by group III with 70.2 % and group II with 65.2 %. Risk of bleeding was comparable between the three groups, with group II carrying the highest rate of complications (34.7 %) followed by group III (14.2 %) and finally group I (5.7 %). After 1 year of follow-up, Child score did not improve in any of the studied groups, while portal hypertensive gastropathy significantly increased in group I but decreased in groups II and III.

CONCLUSIONS

Band ligation is the best treatment option for primary prevention of variceal bleeding with minimal complications. Carvedilol is a good pharmaceutical alternative medicine to propranolol with lesser side-effects. Progress of liver disease as represented by Child score is not affected by any of the primary variceal prophylactic regimens, although medical treatment reduces portal hypertensive gastropathy. Choice of treatment depends on patient will, compliance with treatment, and endoscopist competence.

Interventions for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis is an autosomal recessive inherited defect in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene resulting in abnormal regulation of salt and water movement across the membranes. In the liver this leads to focal biliary fibrosis resulting in progressive portal hypertension and end-stage liver disease in some individuals. This can be asymptomatic, but may lead to splenomegaly and hypersplenism, development of varices and variceal bleeding, and ascites; it has negative impact on overall nutritional status and respiratory function in this population. Prognosis is poor once significant portal hypertension is established. The role and outcome of various interventions for managing advanced liver disease (non-malignant end stage disease) in people with cystic fibrosis is currently unidentified.

OBJECTIVES

To review and assess the efficacy of currently available treatment options for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in children and adults with cystic fibrosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books.Date of last search: 06 April 2017.We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and online trials registries. Date of last search: 04 January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any published and unpublished randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials of advanced liver disease in cystic fibrosis with cirrhosis or liver failure, portal hypertension or variceal bleeding (or both).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors independently examined titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant trials, but none were eligible for inclusion in this review.

MAIN RESULTS

A comprehensive search of the literature did not identify any published eligible randomised controlled trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In order to develop the best source of evidence, there is a need to undertake randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in adults and children with cystic fibrosis.

Recent advances in the management of variceal bleeding

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

Platelet count, spleen length, and platelet count-to-spleen length ratio for the diagnosis of oesophageal varices in people with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend screening of people with oesophageal varices via oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy at the time of diagnosis of hepatic cirrhosis. This requires that people repeatedly undergo unpleasant invasive procedures with their attendant risks, although half of these people have no identifiable oesophageal varices 10 years after the initial diagnosis of cirrhosis. Platelet count, spleen length, and platelet count-to-spleen length ratio are non-invasive tests proposed as triage tests for the diagnosis of oesophageal varices.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objectives To determine the diagnostic accuracy of platelet count, spleen length, and platelet count-to-spleen length ratio for the diagnosis of oesophageal varices of any size in paediatric or adult patients with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis, irrespective of aetiology. To investigate the accuracy of these non-invasive tests as triage or replacement of oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy. Secondary objectives To compare the diagnostic accuracy of these same tests for the diagnosis of high-risk oesophageal varices in paediatric or adult patients with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis, irrespective of aetiology.We aimed to perform pair-wise comparisons between the three index tests, while considering predefined cut-off values.We investigated sources of heterogeneity.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), and Science Citation Index - Expanded (Web of Science) (14 June 2016). We applied no language or document-type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of platelet count, spleen length, and platelet count-to-spleen length ratio for the diagnosis of oesophageal varices via oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy as the reference standard in children or adults of any age with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis, who did not have variceal bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standard Cochrane methods as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test of Accuracy Reviews.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 71 studies, 67 of which enrolled only adults and four only children. All included studies were cross-sectional and were undertaken at a tertiary care centre. Eight studies reported study results in abstracts or letters. We considered all but one of the included studies to be at high risk of bias. We had major concerns about defining the cut-off value for the three index tests; most included studies derived the best cut-off values a posteriori, thus overestimating accuracy; 16 studies were designed to validate the 909 (n/mm3)/mm cut-off value for platelet count-to-spleen length ratio. Enrolment of participants was not consecutive in six studies and was unclear in 31 studies. Thirty-four studies assessed enrolment consecutively. Eleven studies excluded some included participants from the analyses, and in only one study, the time interval between index tests and the reference standard was longer than three months. Diagnosis of varices of any size. Platelet count showed sensitivity of 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.77) and specificity of 0.80 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.88) (cut-off value of around 150,000/mm3 from 140,000 to 150,000/mm3; 10 studies, 2054 participants). When examining potential sources of heterogeneity, we found that of all predefined factors, only aetiology had a role: studies including participants with chronic hepatitis C reported different results when compared with studies including participants with mixed aetiologies (P = 0.036). Spleen length showed sensitivity of 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.91) and specificity of 0.54 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.62) (cut-off values of around 110 mm, from 110 to 112.5 mm; 13 studies, 1489 participants). Summary estimates for detection of varices of any size showed sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.97) and specificity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.91) in 17 studies, and 2637 participants had a cut-off value for platelet count-to-spleen length ratio of 909 (n/mm3)/mm. We found no effect of predefined sources of heterogeneity. An overall indirect comparison of the HSROCs of the three index tests showed that platelet count-to-spleen length ratio was the most accurate index test when compared with platelet count (P < 0.001) and spleen length (P < 0.001). Diagnosis of varices at high risk of bleeding. Platelet count showed sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.85) and specificity of 0.68 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.77) (cut-off value of around 150,000/mm3 from 140,000 to 160,000/mm3; seven studies, 1671 participants). For spleen length, we obtained only a summary ROC curve as we found no common cut-off between studies (six studies, 883 participants). Platelet count-to-spleen length ratio showed sensitivity of 0.85 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.93) and specificity of 0.66 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.77) (cut-off value of around 909 (n/mm3)/mm; from 897 to 921 (n/mm3)/mm; seven studies, 642 participants). An overall indirect comparison of the HSROCs of the three index tests showed that platelet count-to-spleen length ratio was the most accurate index test when compared with platelet count (P = 0.003) and spleen length (P < 0.001). DIagnosis of varices of any size in children. We found four studies including 277 children with different liver diseases and or portal vein thrombosis. Platelet count showed sensitivity of 0.71 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.80) and specificity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.91) (cut-off value of around 115,000/mm3; four studies, 277 participants). Platelet count-to-spleen length z-score ratio showed sensitivity of 0.74 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.81) and specificity of 0.64 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.84) (cut-off value of 25; two studies, 197 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Platelet count-to-spleen length ratio could be used to stratify the risk of oesophageal varices. This test can be used as a triage test before endoscopy, thus ruling out adults without varices. In the case of a ratio > 909 (n/mm3)/mm, the presence of oesophageal varices of any size can be excluded and only 7% of adults with varices of any size would be missed, allowing investigators to spare the number of oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy examinations. This test is not accurate enough for identification of oesophageal varices at high risk of bleeding that require primary prophylaxis. Future studies should assess the diagnostic accuracy of this test in specific subgroups of patients, as well as its ability to predict variceal bleeding. New non-invasive tests should be examined.

Non-selective β-blockers in advanced cirrhosis: a critical review of the effects on overall survival and renal function

Introduction

Non-selective β-blockers (NSBBs) are widely prescribed in patients with cirrhosis for primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding oesophageal varices. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the clinical benefits of NSBBs may extend beyond their haemodynamic effects. Recently, a potentially harmful effect has been described in patients with refractory ascites or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.

Methodology

A comprehensive literature search on β-blockers and cirrhosis survival using the electronic databases PubMed/MEDLINE, AMED, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Full-text manuscripts published over more than 35 years, from 1980 to April 2016 were reviewed for relevance and reference lists were cross-checked for additional pertinent studies regarding potential NSBB effects, especially focused on those concerned with survival and/or acute kidney injury (AKI).

Discussion

The proposed review will be able to provide valuable evidence to help decision making in the use of NSBB for the treatment of advanced cirrhosis and highlights some limitations in existing evidence to direct future research.

Rethinking the role of non-selective beta blockers in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension

Non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) are commonly used to prevent portal hypertensive bleeding in cirrhotics. Nevertheless, in the last years, the use of NSBB in critically decompensated patients, especially in those with refractory ascites, has been questioned, mainly for an increased risk of mortality and worsening of systemic hemodynamics. Moreover, even if NSBB have been reported to correlate with a higher risk of renal failure and severe infection in patients with advanced liver disease and hypotension, their use has been associated with a reduction of risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, modification of gut permeability and reduction of bacterial translocation. This manuscript systematically reviews the published evidences about harms and benefits of the use of NSBB in patients with decompensated cirrhosis.

Knowledge about non-invasive diagnostic tests for varices in liver cirrhosis: A questionnaire survey to the Gastroenterology Branch of the Liaoning Medical Association, China

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Due to the invasiveness of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, non-invasive diagnostic tests for varices in liver cirrhosis have been widely established by numerous studies. A questionnaire survey, which was aimed at understanding the current knowledge about non-invasive diagnostic tests for varices in liver cirrhosis, was distributed among the members of Gastroenterology Branch of the Liaoning Medical Association.

METHODS

A questionnaire assessing the knowledge about non-invasive diagnostic tests for varices was sent to 42 members who participated in the entire ninth committee. They were from 33 hospitals in 13 cities of Liaoning Province, China.

RESULTS

Overall, 97.6% (41/42) of participants responded to the questionnaire. A majority of participants were chief physicians (85.4%), had >20 years of experience in clinical work of digestive diseases (80.5%) and worked at tertiary hospitals (97.6%). In 46.3% of participants' departments, there were >200 patients with liver cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices admitted every year. In 90.2% of participants' departments, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was regularly employed for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal varices. Only six (15%) participants often used non-invasive diagnostic tests for varices in clinical practice. Thirty (75%) participants knew at least one non-invasive diagnostic test for varices. The knowledge of at least one non-invasive diagnostic test was significantly associated with the number of cirrhotic patients with varices (P = 0.038) or the regular use of gastrointestinal endoscopy to diagnose varices (P = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

This questionnaire survey suggested that non-invasive diagnostic tests for varices in liver cirrhosis were rarely or never used in clinical practices in Liaoning Province, China. Reliable, non-invasive indexes should be further explored in a well-designed multi-center observational study.

Quality of Care in the Cirrhotic Patient

Cirrhosis is a common, complex, chronic condition requiring care by multiple specialists in different locations. Emerging data demonstrates limitations in the quality of care these patients receive—in large part due to the problems with care coordination rather than failures of individual providers. This article will discuss approaches for measuring quality, and provide a step-by-step guide for developing quality improvement programs for this patient population.

Fighting Hepatitis B in North Korea: Feasibility of a Bi-modal Prevention Strategy

In North Korea, the prevalence of hepatitis B is high due to natural factors, gaps in vaccination, and the lack of antiviral treatment. Aid projects are urgently needed, however impeded by North Korea's political and economical situation and isolation. The feasibility of a joint North Korean and German humanitarian hepatitis B prevention program was assessed. Part 1: Hepatitis B vaccination catch-up campaign. Part 2: Implementation of endoscopic ligation of esophageal varices (EVL) by trainings in Germany and North Korea. By vaccinating 7 million children between 2010 and 2012, the hepatitis B vaccination gap was closed. Coverage of 99.23% was reached. A total of 11 hepatitis B-induced liver cirrhosis patients (mean age 41.1 yr) with severe esophageal varices and previous bleedings were successfully treated by EVL without major complications. A clinical standard operating procedure, a feedback system and a follow-up plan were developed. The bi-modal preventive strategy was implemented successfully. Parts of the project can serve as an example for other low-income countries, however its general transferability is limited due to the special circumstances in North Korea.

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

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

Determinants of esophageal varices bleeding in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Sorafenib is the standard of care for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), yet treatment safety may be challenged by portal hypertension. We therefore assessed the prevalence, risk factors and clinical consequences of esophageal varices (EVs) in sorafenib-treated patients with HCC.

METHODS

Starting in 2008, all compensated patients with advanced or intermediate HCC not eligible for other therapies were consecutively enrolled in a prospective evaluation of sorafenib therapy, all with pretreatment by upper-gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE).

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients received sorafenib for 4.6 (95% CI, 3.3-5.6) months. At baseline, 61 (41%) patients were EV free (group A), 78 (52%) had EVs (61 small EVs (group B), 17 medium/large EVs (group C)) and 11 (7%) previously endoscopically treated EVs (group D). Propranolol was given to all patients with medium/large EVs and those with previous bleeding. Twelve patients (8%) bled from EVs after 36 (18-260) days of sorafenib. During sorafenib, bleeding occurred in six of 26 group B patients with neoplastic portal vein thrombosis (nPVT), three of nine group C patients with nPVT, two of five group D patients with nPVT and one of six without nPVT (p < 0.0001), nPVT being the strongest independent predictor of bleeding by multivariate analysis (HR = 15.4, 95% CI 1.84-129.6).

CONCLUSION

UGE screening is worthwhile in HCC patients allocated to sorafenib since it identifies patients with EVs at risk of bleeding during therapy, particularly those with nPVT.

Therapies: Drugs, Scopes and Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt--When and How?

Variceal bleeding is the most serious complication of portal hypertension. All cirrhotic patients should be screened endoscopically for varices which are present in about 30% of compensated and 60% of decompensated patients at diagnosis. In patients without varices, endoscopy surveillance should be continued every 2 years. Patients with high-risk varices (moderate or large in size, or with red color signs, or in Child-Pugh C patients) should be treated with a nonselective β-blocker to prevent bleeding (propranolol, nadolol or carvedilol). Endoscopic banding ligation is also effective for the prevention of first bleeding, and it is the first choice in patients with contraindications or intolerance to β-blockers. Acute variceal hemorrhage still has a high mortality rate (around 15%) and requires intensive care management and conservative blood transfusion policy. Treatment is based on the combined use of vasoactive drugs, endoscopic band ligation and prophylactic antibiotics. Failures are best managed by transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Balloon tamponade or specifically designed covered esophageal stents can be used as a bridge to definitive therapy in unstable patients. Early, preemptive TIPS might be the first choice in patients at high risk of failure (Child-Pugh B with active bleeding or Child-Pugh C up to 13 points). Patients surviving a variceal bleeding are at high risk of rebleeding. A combination of β-blockers and endoscopic band ligation is the most effective therapeutic approach. Preliminary data suggest that the addition of simvastatin increases survival in these patients.