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

Endoscopic treatment for gastroesophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis: a survey comparing between developed and developing countries

BACKGROUND

In this survey, we compared endoscopists' approach to treatment of gastroesophageal varices (GOV) in patients with cirrhosis between developed and developing countries. The objective of this study was to undertake a comparative analysis of the approaches employed by endoscopists in developed and developing countries with regard to the treatment of GOV in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

Between Jan 2019 to Aug 2019, we administered a questionnaire-based online survey internationally via e-mail. A total of 148 endoscopists from five countries were invited to participate in the survey, and 93 responses were received (response rate: 62.8%). The questionnaire covered several aspects: characteristics of the respondents, primary prophylactics, endoscopic therapy, and secondary prophylactics for acute variceal bleeding (AVB). The answers were compared between developed and developing countries using the chi-square test. For all tests, a P value of < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between developed and developing countries in practice settings (P = 0.001), the years of independent gastroenterology or endoscopic practice (P = 0.036), treating non-hemorrhagic large gastric varices with medicine (P = 0.019), and selection of preferred initial endoscopic therapy for active gastric fundic variceal bleeding (P = 0.015). Notably, developed and developing countries did not significantly differ in terms of treatment of non-hemorrhagic esophageal varices (P = 0.076), initial endoscopic therapy for active gastric cardia variceal bleeding (P = 0.272), timing of secondary prophylaxis (P = 0.104), timing of endoscopy (P = 0.073), measures for secondary prophylaxis (P = 0.166), and basis for the selection of management preferences (P = 0.278).

CONCLUSION

There were some differences in the practice of endoscopists for GOV in patients with cirrhosis between developing and developed countries. We speculate that these differences may affect the costs, management of primary bleeding, and chances of rebleeding in GOV. Furthermore, the equipment and technical conditions of different hospitals may also significantly influence the endoscopist's choice of treatment modality. We hope that future studies will place greater emphasis on this aspect as continuing education of and providing updated equipment to endoscopists are of paramount importance.

Comparative Effectiveness of Endoscopic Versus Pharmacological Interventions for Variceal Rebleeding in Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review

Variceal bleeding is a critical complication in cirrhotic patients, significantly increasing morbidity and mortality risks, particularly after an initial bleeding episode. This systematic review evaluates and compares the effectiveness of endoscopic and pharmacological interventions in preventing variceal rebleeding. A comprehensive search of major databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science, was conducted to identify studies published within the past decade. The review focused on randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, and meta-analyses that assessed the efficacy and safety of these treatments in adult cirrhotic patients with a history of variceal bleeding. The findings suggest that endoscopic interventions, such as band ligation and early transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement, effectively reduce immediate rebleeding rates and improve short-term survival, particularly in high-risk patients with advanced cirrhosis. In contrast, pharmacological strategies, including beta-blockers and vasoactive agents, provide effective long-term management with fewer adverse events, especially in patients with milder liver disease. The review underscores the importance of a personalized treatment approach that integrates both endoscopic and pharmacological therapies to optimize outcomes and reduce the burden of rebleeding. It also highlights the need for further high-quality research to clarify the long-term benefits, impact on quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of these interventions. These insights form the basis for refining clinical guidelines and improving patient-centered care in the management of variceal rebleeding.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting in patients over 60 years with cirrhosis and comorbidities when liver transplantation is reasonably denied

Aim. To determine the potential of TIPS that provides effective portal decompression for longevity and quality of life of patients over 60 years with cirrhosis and concomitant pathology when liver transplantation is reasonably denied.

Materials and methods. The study included 27 patients aged over 60 with comorbidities, who underwent TIPS in 2016–2023 due to life-threatening manifestations of complicated portal hypertension of cirrhotic origin.

Results. TIPS provided effective portal decompression in all 27 patients, confirmed by a 55.4 ± 5.2% reduction in portal pressure gradient. No hospital and 6-week mortality was recorded. 2 deaths (7.4%) were registered within one year after shunt surgery.

Conclusion. In addition to lessening the risk of life-threatening complications, reduction of portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis provides favorable conditions for therapy of concomitant diseases, limited by concerns regarding hepatic decompensation. Due to the achieved stabilization of comorbidities, the denial to include the patient in the waiting list for liver transplantation can be reconsidered.

Effect of endoscopic therapy and drug therapy on prognosis and rebleeding in patients with esophagogastric variceal bleeding

Esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EVB) is one of the common digestive system emergencies with poor prognosis and high rate of rebleeding after treatment. To explore the effects of endoscopic therapy and drug therapy on the prognosis and rebleeding of patients with EVB, and then select better treatment methods to effectively improve the prognosis. From January 2013 to December 2022, 965 patients with EVB who were hospitalized in gastroenterology Department of the 940 Hospital of Joint Logistic Support Forces of PLA were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into endoscopic treatment group (ET, n = 586) and drug treatment group (DT, n = 379). Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed in both groups, and the general information, efficacy and length of hospital stay were recorded. The patients were followed up for 3 months after bleeding control to determine whether rebleeding occurred. There were 286 cases in each group after PSM. Compared with DT group, ET had higher treatment success rate (P < 0.001), lower rebleeding rate (P < 0.001), lower mortality rate within 3 months, and no significant difference in total hospital stay (P > 0.05). Compared with drug therapy, endoscopic treatment of EVB has short-term efficacy advantages, and can effectively reduce the incidence of rebleeding and mortality within 3 months.

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.

Analysis of Complications and Risk Factors Other than Bleeding before and after Endoscopic Treatment of Esophagogastric Variceal Bleeding in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis

Objective. To identify any concomitant complications other than bleeding (COTB) before and after endoscopic treatment of esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB) in liver cirrhosis patients and explore the underlying risk factors. Materials and Methods. Cirrhotic patients complicated with EGVB, who underwent interventional endoscopic treatments in our hospital from November 2017 to August 2020, were enrolled in this study. Clinical data were retrospectively analyzed for COTB at admission and within 2 years of the first endoscopic treatment. Patients were screened for potential risk factors of COTB before and after the treatment. Univariate analysis was performed to identify clinical factors of secondary complications, and statistically significant factors were included in the multivariate Cox and logistic regression analyses. Results. Of the 547 patients with cirrhosis, 361 individuals had COTB in the first endoscopic treatment. In this cohort, the top 3 prevalent incidences were portal vein thrombosis (PVT) or spongiosis, cholelithiasis, and pathogenic infections. The COTB did not occur at admission in 171 liver cirrhosis patients but happened at the follow-up. Higher Child-Pugh scores indicated potential risks of multiple concurrent complications, including bleeding. Risk factors for concomitant PVT or cavernous changes after endoscopic treatment of EGVB, pathogenic infections, and cholelithiasis could prolong the cirrhosis symptoms, while noncholestatic cirrhosis patients might have a lower risk than posthepatitis B cirrhosis patients, in the context of a higher degree of EGV and serum level of D-D and a lower blood calcium level. Conclusions. Clinical treatment and interventions can be tailored to avoid other complications during and after EGVB treatment, which can affect the outcome and prognosis of bleeding symptoms.

Beta-blockers in patients with liver cirrhosis: Pragmatism or perfection?

With increasing decompensation, hyperdynamic circulatory disturbance occurs in liver cirrhosis despite activation of vasoconstrictors. Here, the concept of a therapy with non-selective beta-blockers was established decades ago. They lower elevated portal pressure, protect against variceal hemorrhage, and may also have pleiotropic immunomodulatory effects. Recently, the beneficial effect of carvedilol, which blocks alpha and beta receptors, has been highlighted. Carvedilol leads to "biased-signaling" via recruitment of beta-arrestin. This effect and its consequences have not been sufficiently investigated in patients with liver cirrhosis. Also, a number of questions remain open regarding the expression of beta-receptors and its intracellular signaling and the respective consequences in the intra- and extrahepatic tissue compartments. Despite the undisputed role of non-selective beta-blockers in the treatment of liver cirrhosis, we still can improve the knowledge as to when and how beta-blockers should be used in which patients.

Therapeutic effect of autologous bone marrow cells injected into the liver under the guidance of B‑ultrasound in the treatment of HBV‑related decompensated liver cirrhosis

The 5-year mortality rates associated with decompensated liver cirrhosis (DLC) can reach 50%, which suggests that this condition poses a serious health risk. In previous studies conducted by our group, autologous bone marrow nucleated cells (ABMNCs) were used to treat HIV-positive patients with DLC through the right omental vein; however, trauma and poor compliance were encountered. In the present study, the percutaneous liver approach to inject ABMNCs under the guidance of B-ultrasound was employed for the treatment of DLC. A total of 108 patients with DLC were retrospectively divided into the routine drug treatment group (control group; 30 cases), the right omental vein infusion of ABMNCs group (observation group 1; 38 cases) and the B-ultrasound-guided liver injection of ABMNCs group (observation group 2; 40 cases). After treatment, the liver synthesis (prothrombin time, albumin and ascites) and secretion functions (total bilirubin) in observation groups 1 and 2 were significantly improved compared with those of the control group (P<0.01) and the bone marrow function was also significantly improved compared with that of the control group (P<0.01). While, the bone marrow function (white blood cell, platelet, and hemoglobin) in observation group 1 was significantly improved compared with that of observation group 2 at the end of treatment (P<0.01). After a 1-year follow-up, the case fatality rate was 2.5% (1/40) in observation group 2, which was significantly lower than the 20% fatality rate (6/30) recorded in the control group (P<0.05). The injection of ABMNCs into the liver under the guidance of B-ultrasound was significantly better than conventional drug therapy in treating DLC. This approach has obvious advantages such as no hospitalization, minimal trauma, rapid recovery and good compliance, all of which make it worthy of application in primary hospitals.

Associations Between Endoscopic Primary Prophylaxis and Rebleeding in Liver Cirrhosis Patients with Esophagogastric Variceal Bleeding

Aim

To identify the association between endoscopic primary prophylaxis and the risk of rebleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis receiving endoscopic therapy.

Methods

This cohort study involved in 944 liver cirrhosis patients with esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB) receiving endoscopic therapy. All participants were divided into two groups: rebleeding group (n = 425) and non-rebleeding group (n = 519) according to the occurrence of rebleeding in patients. Rebleeding indicated any bleeding after endoscopic therapy for the first bleeding of esophagogastric varices in liver cirrhosis patients. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses were employed to identify the association between endoscopic primary prophylaxis and rebleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis after endoscopic therapy.

Results

In total, 425 patients rebleeded at the end of the follow-up. The risk of rebleeding in patients with endoscopic primary prophylaxis decreased by 0.773 times (OR = 0.227, 95%CI: 0.139–0.372, P < 0.001) after adjusting covariables. Subgroups were divided according to the Child-Pugh (CP) score, and the results revealed that the risk of rebleeding in patients with endoscopic primary prophylaxis decreased by 0.858 times in Grade A patients (OR = 0.142, 95%CI: 0.066–0.304, P < 0.001) and 0.804 times in Grade B patients (OR = 0.196, 95%CI: 0.085–0.451, P < 0.001) compared with patients without endoscopic primary prophylaxis, but showed no difference in Grade C patients.

Conclusion

Endoscopic primary prophylaxis was associated with a decreased risk of rebleeding in liver cirrhosis patients with EGVB after endoscopic therapy, which suggested that clinicians should pay more attention to endoscopic primary prophylaxis to prevent the occurrence of rebleeding in these patients.

Clostridioides difficile Infection among Cirrhotic Patients with Variceal Bleeding

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) stands as the leading cause of nosocomial infection with high morbidity and mortality rates, causing a major burden on the healthcare system. Driven by antibiotics, it usually affects older patients with chronic disease or immunosuppressed or oncologic management. Variceal bleeding secondary to cirrhosis requires antibiotics to prevent bacterial translocation, and thus patients become susceptible to CDI. We aimed to investigate the risk factors for CDI in cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding following ceftriaxone and the mortality risk in this patient's population. We retrospectively screened 367 cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding, from which 25 patients were confirmed with CDI, from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2019. We found MELD to be the only multivariate predictor for mortality (odds ratio, OR = 1.281, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.098-1.643, p = 0.042). A model of four predictors (age, days of admission, Charlson index, Child-Pugh score) was generated (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, AUC = 0.840, 95% CI: 0.758-0.921, p < 0.0001) to assess the risk of CDI exposure. Determining the probability of getting CDI for cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding could be a tool for doctors in taking decisions, which could be integrated in sustainable public health programs.

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.

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.