Propranolol in the prevention of the first hemorrhage from esophagogastric varices: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial

Management of Portal Hypertension in the Older Patient

PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW

Aging is a process of physiological slowing, reduced regenerative capacity and inability to maintain cellular homeostasis. World Health Organisation declared the commencement of population aging globally, largely attributed to improvement in the healthcare system with early diagnosis and effective clinical management. Liver ages similar to other organs, with reduction in size and blood flow. In this review we aim to evaluate the effect of aging in liver disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Aging causes dysregulation of major carbohydrate, fat and protein metabolism in the liver. Age is a major risk factor for liver fibrosis accelerated by sinusoidal endothelial dysfunction and immunological disharmony. Age plays a major role in patients with liver cirrhosis and influence outcomes in patients with portal hypertension. Transient elastography may be an useful tool in the assessment of portal hypertension. Hepatic structural distortion, increased vascular resistance, state of chronic inflammation, associated comorbidities, lack of physiological reserve in the older population may aggravate portal hypertension in patients with liver cirrhosis and may result in pronounced variceal bleed. Cut-offs for other non-invasive markers of fibrosis may differ in the elderly population. Non-selective beta blockers initiated at lower dose followed by escalation are the first line of therapy in elderly patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, unless contraindicated. Acute variceal bleed in the elderly cirrhotic patients can be life threatening and may cause rapid exsanguination due to poor reserve and associated comorbidities. Vasoactive drugs may be associated with more adverse reactions. Early endoscopy may be warranted in the elderly patients with acute variceal bleed. Role of TIPS in the elderly cirrhotics discussed. Management of portal hypertension in the older population may pose significant challenges to the treating clinician.

Pharmacologic Treatment of Portal Hypertension

Portal hypertension is the key mechanism driving the transition from compensated to decompensated cirrhosis. In this review, the authors described the pathophysiology of portal hypertension in cirrhosis and the rationale of pharmacologic treatment of portal hypertension. We discussed both etiologic and nonetiologic treatment of portal hypertension and the specific clinical scenarios how nonselective beta-blocker can be used in patients with cirrhosis. Finally, the authors summarized the evidence for emerging alternatives for portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis.

Heterogeneity of treatment response to beta-blockers in the treatment of portal hypertension: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that a relevant proportion of patients do not respond to nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB)s, which raises questions regarding the need for individualized therapy. The existence of potential heterogeneity in the treatment response can be assessed using the variability ratio (VR) of the outcome measurement (in this case, HVPG) between the treated and placebo groups. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the potential heterogeneity in the portal pressure response to NSBBs.

METHODS

After a systematic search, we quantified the heterogeneity of treatment response with the VR between the treatment and control groups, with VR > 1 indicating potential heterogeneity. We used a similar approach to compare carvedilol with propranolol and statins with placebo.

RESULTS

We identified 18 studies that included 965 patients. A comparison between beta-blockers and placebo showed a pooled VR of 0.99 (95% CI:0.87-1.14), which suggests a homogeneous HVPG response to NSBB at the individual patient level (ie, no evidence to support that some patients responded to beta-blockers and others did not). For the comparison between carvedilol and propranolol, pooled VR was 0.97 (95% CI 0.82-1.14), suggesting that carvedilol achieves a greater average response (rather than an increase in the proportion of responders). There was no evidence of a heterogeneous response to statins.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis did not support the existence of a heterogeneous patient-by-patient response to NSBBs in cirrhosis. These findings challenge the concept of personalized therapy based on portal pressure response and indicate that routine portal pressure measurement may not be necessary to guide NSBB therapy.

Individualized portal pressure gradient threshold based on liver function categories in preventing rebleeding after TIPS

BACKGROUND

The evidence in Portal pressure gradient (PPG) < 12 mmHg after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for preventing rebleeding mostly comes from observations in uncovered stents era. Moreover, association between Child-Pugh classes and post-TIPS hepatic encephalopathy (HE) has indicated that tolerance of PPG reduction depends on liver function. This study aimed to investigate the optimal PPG for covered TIPS and explore the optimal threshold tailored to the Child-Pugh classes to find individualized PPG to balance rebleeding and overt HE.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study analyzed rebleeding, OHE, and mortality of patients associated with post-TIPS PPGs (8, 10, 12, and 14 mmHg) in the entire cohort and among different Child-Pugh classes. Propensity score matching (PSM) and competing risk analyses were performed for sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

We included 2100 consecutively screened patients undergoing TIPS. In all patients, PPG < 12 mmHg reduced rebleeding after TIPS (p = 0.022). In Child-Pugh class A, none of the PPG thresholds were discriminative of clinical outcomes. In Child-Pugh class B, 12 mmHg (p = 0.022) and 14 mmHg (p = 0.037) discriminated rebleeding, but 12 mmHg showed a higher net benefit. In Child-Pugh class C, PPG < 14 mmHg had a lower rebleeding incidence (p = 0.017), and exhibited more net benefit than 12 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

Different PPG standards may be required for patients with different liver function categories. A PPG threshold < 12 mmHg might be suitable for patients in Child-Pugh class B, while < 14 mmHg might be optimal for patients in Child-Pugh class C.

Non-selective beta-blockers and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a serious complication of cirrhosis. Currently, non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are commonly used to treat portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis. The latest research shows that NSBBs can induce apoptosis and S-phase arrest in liver cancer cells and inhibit the development of hepatic vascular endothelial cells, which may be effective in preventing HCC in cirrhosis patients. Aim: To determine the relationship between different NSBBs and HCC incidence in patients with cirrhosis. Methods: We searched the Cochrane database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. Cohort studies, case‒control studies, and randomized controlled trials were included if they involved cirrhosis patients who were divided into an experimental group using NSBBs and a control group with any intervention. Based on heterogeneity, we calculated odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effect models. We also conducted subgroup analysis to explore the source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias detection were performed. Results: A total of 47 studies included 38 reporting HCC incidence, 26 reporting HCC-related mortality, and 39 reporting overall mortality. The HCC incidence between the experimental group and the control group was OR = 0.87 (0.69 and 1.10), p = 0.000, and I2 = 81.8%. There was no significant association between propranolol (OR = 0.94 and 95%CI 0.62-1.44) or timolol (OR = 1.32 and 95%CI 0.44-3.95) and HCC incidence, while the risk of HCC decreased by 26% and 38% with nadolol (OR = 0.74 and 95%CI 0.64-0.86) and carvedilol (OR = 0.62 and 95%CI 0.52-0.74), respectively. Conclusion: Different types of NSBB have different effects on the incidence of patients with cirrhosis of the liver, where nadolol and carvedilol can reduce the risk. Also, the effect of NSBBs may vary in ethnicity. Propranolol can reduce HCC incidence in Europe and America. Systematic Review Registration: identifier https://CRD42023434175, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.

Liver Cirrhosis and Portal Hypertension

The understanding of pathogenesis of portal hypertension in patients with liver cirrhosis continues to evolve. In addition to progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis is characterized by parenchymal extinction and vascular remodelling, causing architectural distortion. Existence of prothrombotic state and more recently, intestinal bacterial dysbiosis are recently described in the pathogenesis of portal hypertension. Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) is an important prognostic milestone in patients with liver cirrhosis. This is a pre-symptomatic phase that predicts the development of varices, ascites and importantly increased risk of Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). CSPH is associated with significantly reduced survival. Endoscopic surveillance is necessary in these patients. Non-selective Beta-blocker is the preferred therapy for primary prophylaxis in the management of portal hypertension. Patients with acute variceal bleed should be resuscitated appropriately, followed by vasoactive drugs and endoscopic therapy. Early TIPS should be considered in those with refractory bleed or in endoscopic treatment failure. Application of artificial intelligence and machine learning may be useful in future for identifying patients at risk of variceal hemorrhage.

Comprehensive treatment of patients with gastric variceal bleeding

Gastro-oesophageal varices are the major clinical manifestations of cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Bleeding from gastric varices is usually severe and is associated with higher mortality and a higher risk of rebleeding than from esophageal varices. The management of variceal bleeding is complex, often requiring a multidisciplinary approach involving pharmacological, endoscopic, and radiological interventions. In terms of treatment, three stages can be considered: primary prophylaxis, active bleeding, and secondary prophylaxis. The main goal of primary and secondary prophylaxis is to prevent variceal bleeding. However, active variceal bleeding is a medical emergency that requires prompt intervention to stop it and achieve long-term hemostasis. This review describes the features of pharmacological, endoscopic and interventional radiological prophylactic and treatment options in gastric variceal bleeding. We searched the literature in the MedLine database on the PubMed platform.

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.

Pathophysiology and Management of Variceal Bleeding

Cirrhosis is the fifth leading cause of death in adults. Advanced cirrhosis can cause significant portal hypertension (PH), which is responsible for many of the complications observed in patients with cirrhosis, such as varices. If portal pressure exceeds a certain threshold, the patient is at risk of developing life-threatening bleeding from varices. Variceal bleeding has a high incidence among patients with liver cirrhosis and carries a high risk of mortality and morbidity. The management of variceal bleeding is complex, often requiring a multidisciplinary approach involving pharmacological, endoscopic, and radiologic interventions. In terms of management, three stages can be considered: primary prophylaxis, active bleeding, and secondary prophylaxis. The main goal of primary and secondary prophylaxis is to prevent variceal bleeding. However, active variceal bleeding is a medical emergency that requires swift intervention to stop the bleeding and achieve durable hemostasis. We describe the pathophysiology of cirrhosis and PH to contextualize the formation of gastric and esophageal varices. We also discuss the currently available treatments and compare how they fare in each stage of clinical management, with a special focus on drugs that can prevent bleeding or assist in achieving hemostasis.

Beta-blockers versus placebo 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 haemorrhage from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal haemorrhage commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. Therefore, prevention is important. Band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as alternatives for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children. However, primary prophylaxis is not the current standard of care in paediatric patients because it is unknown whether those treatments are of benefit or harm when used for primary prophylaxis in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo 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, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded (April 2020). We screened the reference lists of the retrieved publications and manually searched the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conference (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from 2008 to December 2019. We 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 planned to include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status to assess benefits and harms. We included observational studies, retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials, for a narrative report of harm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials by standard Cochrane methodologies. We planned to asses risk of bias and use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were oesophageal variceal bleeding and adverse events not considered serious. We planned to use intention-to-treat principle. We planned to analyse data with RevMan Analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised clinical trials that assessed beta-blockers compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. We found four observational studies that reported on harms. As a systematic search for observational studies was not planned, we only listed the reported harms in a table.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. Therefore, trials with adequate power and proper design, assessing the benefits and harms of beta-blockers versus placebo on patient-relevant clinical outcomes, such as mortality, quality of life, failure to control variceal bleeding, and adverse events are needed. Unless such trials are conducted and the results become published, we cannot make any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of the two interventions.

Computed Tomographic Portography with Esophageal Variceal Measurements in the Evaluation of Esophageal Variceal Severity and Assessment of Esophageal Variceal Volume Efficacy

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study is to evaluate the severity of esophageal varices (EV), based on the computed tomographic portography (CTP) measurement of EV in the distal esophagus and to assess the prediction value of EV volume.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 53 EV patients examined by CTP within 4 weeks of upper endoscopy were evaluated, the patients were divided into a nonconspicuous EV group (mild-to-moderate EV, n = 28) and a conspicuous EV group (severe EV, n = 25) according to endoscopy results. The diameter, cross-sectional surface area (CSA), and volume of EV were measured independently using 3D-slicer (Boston) by two experienced abdominal radiologists blinded to endoscopy findings. The averaged values measured by the two observers were used in the final dataset, these indicators' predictive performances were studied by using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, and the area under the curve (A_z) and the cutoff values were calculated to distinguish mild-to-moderate from severe EV.

RESULTS

The A_z values of volume, diameter and CSA in differentiating severe EV were 0.817, 0.794, and 0.784 for observer-1, corresponding values for observer-2 were 0.796, 0.774, and 0.707, there was almost perfect interobserver agreement for all measurements. All indices were larger in the conspicuous group than the nonconspicuous group in both observers (p ≤ 0.01). In the final dataset, application of a 654.0-mm³-volume criterion yielded sensitivity, specificity of 96%, 50%, application of a 5.2-mm-diameter criterion yielded sensitivity, specificity of 80%, 75%, and application of a 68.6-mm²-CSA criterion yielded sensitivity, specificity of 52%, 93%.

CONCLUSION

The volume of EV could be used as a new effective indictor for evaluating EV, and use of volume, diameter, and CSA of EV based on CTP allows discrimination between mild-to-moderate and severe EV in cirrhotic patients.

Low dose of propranolol treatment is associated with better survival in cirrhotic patients with hepatic encephalopathy

OBJECTIVE

The use of nonselective beta blockers in cirrhotic patients experiencing complications is controversial. We aimed to investigate the association between propranolol treatment and outcomes for cirrhotic patients with hepatic encephalopathy.

METHODS

Using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, we identified 4754 cirrhotic patients newly diagnosed with hepatic encephalopathy between 2001 and 2010. Among them, 519 patients received propranolol treatment and the other 519 patients without exposure to propranolol were enrolled into our study, both of which were matched by sex, age, and propensity score. The Kaplan-Meier method and time-dependent-modified Cox proportional hazards models were employed for survival and multivariate-stratified analyses.

RESULTS

The median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in the propranolol-treated cohort than in the untreated cohort (3.46 versus 1.88 years, P < 0.001). A dose-dependent increase in survival was observed (median OS: 4.49, 3.29, and 2.46 years in patients treated with propranolol more than 30 , 20-30 , and less than 20 mg/day, respectively [P < 0.001, P = 0.001, and P = 0.079 versus the untreated group]). In addition to reduce the risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.58; P < 0.001), propranolol also diminished the risk of sepsis-related death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.31; P = 0.006) according to the multivariate analysis. However, the risk of circulatory or hepatic failure was nonsignificantly altered by propranolol treatment.

CONCLUSION

Low dose of propranolol treatment was associated with a better OS in cirrhotic patients with hepatic encephalopathy and its effects were dose dependent.

Gastric variceal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Comparison of Therapies for Primary Prevention of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of different approaches in primary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding and overall survival in patients with cirrhosis with large varices. Thirty-two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 3,362 adults with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices and no prior history of bleeding, with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up, were included. Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB), isosorbide-mononitrate (ISMN), carvedilol, and variceal band ligation (VBL), alone or in combination, were compared with each other or placebo. Primary outcomes were reduction of all-cause mortality and prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding. Random-effects NMA was performed and summary estimates were expressed as odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals (OR; CI). Quality of evidence was critically appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Moderate quality evidence supports NSBB monotherapy (0.70; 0.49-1.00) or in combination with VBL (0.49; 0.23-1.02) or ISMN (0.44; 0.21-0.93) for decreasing mortality in patients with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices and no prior history of bleeding. Moderate-quality evidence supports carvedilol (0.21; 0.08-0.56) and VBL monotherapy (0.33; 0.19-0.55) or in combination with NSBB (0.34; 0.14-0.86), and low-quality evidence supports NSBB monotherapy (0.64; 0.38-1.07) for primary prevention of variceal bleeding. VBL carries a higher risk of serious adverse events compared with NSBB. Conclusion: NSBB monotherapy may decrease all-cause mortality and the risk of first variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices. Additionally, NSBB carries a lower risk of serious complications compared with VBL. Therefore, NSBB may be the preferred initial approach for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding.

Can Non-Selective Beta-Blockers (NSBBs) Prevent Enlargement of Small Esophageal Varices in Patients with Cirrhosis? A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are recommended for prophylaxis of first variceal bleeding in patients of cirrhosis with large esophageal varices. However, the data is conflicting whether NSBBs can also prevent growth of small esophageal varices to large size.

AIM

To perform a meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials comparing NSBBs with placebo for prevention of development of large esophageal varices in patients of cirrhosis with small esophageal varices.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct, and Cochrane library databases were searched for relevant papers. A meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as the effect sizes.

RESULTS

Overall, 314 trials were initially retrieved from the database searches, of which five randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The incidence of development of large varices (RR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.29-2.86; P = 0.87) was similar between NSBB and placebo groups. However, the heterogeneity among studies was significant (P < 0.01) with an I² of 93%. The incidences of first variceal bleeding (RR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.25-2.12; P = 0.55) and death (RR = 0.76, 95%CI: 0.50-1.15; P = 0.19) were also similar between NSBB and placebo groups; with no heterogeneity. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the NSBB group compared with the placebo group (RR = 4.66, 95%CI: 1.36-15.91; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis indicate that NSBBs are not effective in preventing growth of small varices and may lead to significant adverse effects. Hence, NSBBs should not be recommended for cirrhotic patients with small varices.

The 35-year odyssey of beta blockers in cirrhosis: any gender difference in sight?

Cirrhosis is the end-stage of chronic liver disease and leads to the development of portal hypertension and its complications such as esophagogastric varices. Non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) are the keystone for the treatment of portal hypertension since the 1980s and, over the decades, several studies have confirmed their beneficial effect on the prevention of variceal (re)bleeding. Pharmacological studies showed effects of gender, sex hormones, oral contraceptives, and pregnancy on cytochrome P450 (CYPs) enzymes that metabolise NSBB, suggesting that gender differences might exist in the effect of NSBB. In this review, we focused on the 35-year knowledge about the use of beta blockers in cirrhosis and potential gender differences. We specifically examined the role of NSBB in pre-primary, primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, compared two commonly used NSBB (i.e., Propranolol and Carvedilol), and present the current controversies about the window of treatment in advanced cirrhosis with a specific focus on gender differences in NSBB effects. NSBB are not currently recommended in pre-primary prophylaxis of varices mainly because of lack of proven efficacy. On the other hand, NSBB are strongly recommended in patient with cirrhosis as primary (as alternative to endoscopic band ligation, EBL) and secondary prophylaxis (in addition to EBL) of variceal bleeding. To date, no studies have focused specifically on the effect of gender on NSBB treatment. Data extrapolated from clinical studies show that gender was neither a risk factor for the development of varices nor associated with a different response to treatment in primary or secondary prophylaxis. According to the available guidelines, no different, gender-based treatment for portal hypertension is recommended.

Variceal Bleeding: Prophylaxis, Treatment, and Prevention

Variceal bleeding leads to significant morbidity and mortality in patients with portal hypertension. Mortality can be greater than 50% with the initial bleed and many patients develop recurrent bleeding with equal or greater mortality. Currently cirrhosis is the leading cause of portal hypertension, which is defined as a hepatic vein-portal vein gradient greater than 5 mmHg. Portal hypertension may arise from increased splanchnic blood flow due to systemic vasodilation that occurs in the hyperdynamic circulation of cirrhosis or from increased vascular resistance in intrahepatic and/or portocollateral vessels; by decreasing splanchnic blood flow, portal inflow decreases and so does portal pressure. Pharmacologic therapy consisting of nonselective β-blockers, vasopressin, and octreotide act by decreasing splanchnic blood flow, and long-acting nitrates may cause direct vasodilation of portocollateral vessels and/or decreased splanchnic blood flow. Nonselective β-blockers are the cornerstone of treatment for primary prophylaxis of bleeding, whereas vasopressin and octreotide are used for acute hemorrhaging. Two endoscopic modalities are available for control of acute bleeding and prevention of recurrent bleeding: sclerotherapy and endoscopic variceal ligation. After standard airway control and adequate fluid resuscitation, endoscopy helps localize the area of bleeding, and often in conjunction with vasopressin or octreotide can help control bleeding. Empiric antibiotics (fluoroquinolones or third-generation cephalosporins) should be started prior to endoscopy and early in the course of treatment. Sclerotherapy and band ligation along with nonselective β-blockers can help prevent recurrences of bleeding. For patients with bleeding gastric varices or uncontrollably bleeding esophageal varices, interventional radiologic procedures such as the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) can be used, and depending on the clinical condition and Child's classification of the patient, a surgically created portosystemic shunt may be appropriate treatment. Hopefully with emerging, new techniques and more widespread, prudent use of prophylactic drugs and endoscopy, the mortality and morbidity of variceal bleeding can be reduced.

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.

Non-selective beta-blockers may reduce risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) are used in patients with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices. Experimental data suggest that NSBB inhibit angiogenesis and reduce bacterial translocation, which may prevent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We therefore assessed the effect of NSBB on HCC by performing a systematic review with meta-analyses of randomized trials.

METHODS

Electronic and manual searches were combined. Authors were contacted for unpublished data. Included trials assessed NSBB for patients with cirrhosis; the control group could receive any other intervention than NSBB. Fixed and random effects meta-analyses were performed with I(2) as a measure of heterogeneity. Subgroup, sensitivity, regression and sequential analyses were performed to evaluate heterogeneity, bias and the robustness of the results after adjusting for multiple testing.

RESULTS

Twenty-three randomized trials on 2618 patients with cirrhosis were included, of which 12 reported HCC incidence and 23 reported HCC mortality. The mean duration of follow-up was 26 months (range 8-82). In total, 47 of 694 patients randomized to NSBB developed HCC vs 65 of 697 controls (risk difference -0.026; 95% CI-0.052 to -0.001; number needed to treat 38 patients). There was no heterogeneity (I(2) = 7%) or evidence of small study effects (Eggers P = 0.402). The result was not confirmed in sequential analysis, which suggested that 3719 patients were needed to achieve the required information size. NSBB did not reduce HCC-related mortality (RD -0.011; 95% CI -0.040 to 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-selective beta-blockers may prevent HCC in patients with cirrhosis.

Screening and Prophylaxis for Varices in Children with Liver Disease

Esophageal varices in children with portal hypertension are quite common. Bleeding from these varices frequently occurs. Prophylactic measures to prevent such bleeding can be undertaken either before ("primary," prompted by a screening endoscopy) or after ("secondary") an initial variceal bleed. There are no clear pediatric guidelines for primary or secondary prophylaxis of esophageal varices. Adult studies clearly support the use of pharmacologic (beta blockers) and endoscopic (endoscopic band ligation, EBL) management for both primary and secondary prophylaxis of esophageal varices in patients with portal hypertension. Pediatric studies are limited. There are inadequate data to recommend use of beta blockers to prevent variceal bleeding or rebleeding in children with portal hypertension. There is very limited support for EBL for primary prophylaxis in children and more compelling support for EBL for secondary prophylaxis. Further randomized controlled studies are needed but are difficult to implement in this vulnerable population.

The cost of screening esophageal varices: traditional endoscopy versus computed tomography

OBJECTIVE

Under current guidelines, patients diagnosed with cirrhosis are to undergo initial and continued screening endoscopy for esophageal varices throughout the course of disease. Recent literature suggests that computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen is adequately sensitive for detecting grade 3 varices, those in need of immediate intervention. This study presents a cost comparison of traditional endoscopy versus CT of the abdomen.

METHODS

Using TreeAge Pro software, a budget impact cost model was created for a hypothetical managed care organization covering 1 million lives over a 10-year period. Incidence figures for cirrhosis and the progression of esophageal varices were applied to the patient population. National Medicare reimbursement costs were used to compare screening with traditional endoscopy versus CT. Costs utilizing screening with combined endoscopy and CT were also examined.

RESULTS

The results of comparing screening paradigms under a budget impact cost model results in an outcome measure termed "per-member, per-month" (PMPM) cost of implementing a new strategy. Computed tomography was the least expensive modality with an average 10-year cost per screened patient of $1097.30 and PMPM of $0.03. Endoscopy was the most expensive modality with an average 10-year cost per screened patient of $1464.89 and PMPM of $0.04.

CONCLUSION

Computed tomography has been shown to be sensitive in detecting esophageal varices and now less costly to implement in screening. The cost of esophageal rupture in endoscopy and the less costly risk of contrast reaction as well as radiation exposure in CT of the abdomen should be considered when developing a screening paradigm.

Primary prophylaxis of bleeding from esophageal varices in cirrhosis

Prophylaxis of the first bleeding from esophageal varices became a clinical option more than 20 years ago, and gained a large diffusion in the following years. It is based on the use of nonselective beta-blockers, which decreases portal pressure, or on the eradication of esophageal varices by endoscopic band ligation of varices. In patients with medium or large varices either of these treatments is indicated. In patients with small varices only medical treatment is feasible, and in patients with medium and large varices with contraindication or side-effects due to beta-blockers, only endoscopic band ligation may be used. In this review the rationale and the results of the prophylaxis of bleeding from esophageal varices are discussed.

The risk factors for bleeding of fundal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis

Background/Aims

The relationship between portal hemodynamics and fundal varices has not been well documented. The purpose of this study was to understand the pathophysiology of fundal varices and to investigate bleeding risk factors related to the presence of spontaneous portosystemic shunts, and to examine the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) between fundal varices and other varices.

Methods

In total, 85 patients with cirrhosis who underwent HVPG and gastroscopic examination between July 2009 and March 2011 were included in this study. The interrelationship between HVPG and the types of varices or the presence of spontaneous portosystemic shunts was studied.

Results

There was no significant difference in the HVPG between fundal varices (n=12) and esophageal varices and gastroesophageal varices type 1 (GOV1) groups (n=73) (17.1±7.7 mm Hg vs 19.7±5.3 mm Hg). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the HVPG between varices with spontaneous portosystemic shunts (n=28) and varices without these shunts (n=57) (18.3±5.8 mm Hg vs 17.0±8.1 mm Hg). Spontaneous portosystemic shunts increased in fundal varices compared with esophageal varices and GOV1 (8/12 patients [66.7%] vs 20/73 patients [27.4%]; p=0.016).

Conclusions

Fundal varices had a high prevalence of spontaneous portosystemic shunts compared with other varices. However, the portal pressure in fundal varices was not different from the pressure in esophageal varices and GOV1.

In vivo validation of 4D flow MRI for assessing the hemodynamics of portal hypertension

PURPOSE

To implement and validate in vivo radial 4D flow MRI for quantification of blood flow in the hepatic arterial, portal venous, and splanchnic vasculature of healthy volunteers and patients with portal hypertension.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventeen patients with portal hypertension and seven subjects with no liver disease were included in this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant and Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved study. Exams were conducted at 3T using a 32-channel body coil with large volumetric coverage and 1.4 mm isotropic true spatial resolution. Using postprocessing software, cut-planes orthogonal to vessels were used to quantify flow (L/min) in the hepatic and splanchnic vasculature.

RESULTS

Flow quantification was successful in all cases. Portal vein and supraceliac aorta flow demonstrated high variability among patients. Measurements were validated indirectly using internal consistency at three different locations within the portal vein (error = 4.2 ± 3.9%) and conservation of mass at the portal confluence (error = 5.9 ± 2.5%) and portal bifurcation (error = 5.8 ± 3.1%).

CONCLUSION

This work demonstrates the feasibility of radial 4D flow MRI to quantify flow in the hepatic and splanchnic vasculature. Flow results agreed well with data reported in the literature, and conservation of mass provided indirect validation of flow quantification. Flow in patients with portal hypertensions demonstrated high variability, with patterns and magnitude consistent with the hyperdynamic state that commonly occurs in portal hypertension.

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

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are used as a first-line treatment for primary prevention in patients with medium- to high-risk oesophageal varices. The effect of non-selective beta-blockers on mortality is debated and many patients experience adverse events. Trials on banding ligation versus non-selective beta-blockers for patients with oesophageal varices and no history of bleeding have reached equivocal results.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of banding ligation versus non-selective beta-blockers as primary prevention in adult patients with endoscopically verified oesophageal varices that have never bled, irrespective of the underlying liver disease (cirrhosis or other cause).

SEARCH METHODS

In Febuary 2012, electronic searches (the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded) and manual searches (including scanning of reference lists in relevant articles and conference proceedings) were performed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials were included irrespective of publication status, blinding, and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently extracted data. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. Intention-to-treat random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses were performed. Results were presented as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with I(2) statistic values as a measure of intertrial heterogeneity. Subgroup, sensitivity, regression, and trial sequential analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the overall results, risks of bias, sources of intertrial heterogeneity, and risks of random errors.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen randomised trials on banding ligation versus non-selective beta-blockers for primary prevention in oesophageal varices were included. Most trials specified that only patients with large or high-risk oesophageal varices were included. Bias control was unclear in most trials. In total, 176 of 731 (24%) of the patients randomised to banding ligation and 177 of 773 (23%) of patients randomised to non-selective beta-blockers died. The difference was not statistically significant in a random-effects meta-analysis (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.30; I(2) = 0%). There was no evidence of bias or small study effects in regression analysis (Egger's test P = 0.997). Trial sequential analysis showed that the heterogeneity-adjusted low-bias trial relative risk estimate required an information size of 3211 patients, that none of the interventions showed superiority, and that the limits of futility have not been reached. When all trials were included, banding ligation reduced upper gastrointestinal bleeding and variceal bleeding compared with non-selective beta-blockers (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91; I(2) = 19% and RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.98; I(2) = 31% respectively). The beneficial effect of banding ligation on bleeding was not confirmed in subgroup analyses of trials with adequate randomisation or full paper articles. Bleeding-related mortality was not different in the two intervention arms (29/567 (5.1%) versus 37/585 (6.3%); RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.39; I(2) = 0%). Both interventions were associated with adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found a beneficial effect of banding ligation on primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patient with oesophageal varices. The effect on bleeding did not reduce mortality. Additional evidence is needed to determine whether our results reflect that non-selective beta-blockers have other beneficial effects than on bleeding.

Effect of long-term propranolol treatment on hepatocellular carcinoma incidence in patients with HCV-associated cirrhosis

Propranolol bears antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and antiangiogenic properties and antitumoral effects and therefore is potentially active in the prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We retrospectively assessed the impact of propranolol treatment on HCC occurrence in a cohort of 291 patients with compensated viral C (HCV) cirrhosis, prospectively followed and screened for HCC detection. Of the 291 patients included in the cohort, 93 patients [50 males: mean age, 59.5 ± 12 years; body mass index (BMI), 25.7 ± 4.4 kg/m(2); and platelet count, 111 ± 53 Giga/L] developed esophageal varices (OV) or had OV at inclusion and 198 patients (111 males: mean age, 55.8 ± 13 years; BMI, 25.7 ± 5 kg/m(2); platelet count, 137 ± 59 Giga/L) did not. Among patients with OV, 50 received treatment by propranolol. During a median follow-up of 54 months interquartile range (32-82), 61 patients developed an HCC. The 3- and 5-year HCC incidence was 4% and 4%, and 10% and 20% for patients treated and not treated by propranolol, respectively (Gray test, P = 0.03). In multivariate analysis, propranolol treatment was associated with a decrease risk of HCC occurrence [HR, 0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.09-0.65; P = 0.004], and was the only independent predictive factor of HCC occurrence in patients with OV (HR, 0.16; CI, 0.06-0.45; P = 0.0005). The benefit of propranolol was further supported by propensity scores analyses.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective long-term observational study suggests that propranolol treatment may decrease HCC occurrence in patients with HCV cirrhosis. These findings need to be verified by prospective clinical trial.

Early primary prophylaxis with beta-blockers does not prevent the growth of small esophageal varices in cirrhosis: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of portal pressure reduction by beta-blockers and the utility of serial hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurements for the management of small (≤5 mm) esophageal varices in patients of cirrhosis are not clear.

AIMS

The study had the following aims: to study (1) the effect of propranolol on the growth of small varices and (2) whether single or serial HVPG measurements result in a better outcome compared to no measurement in patients with small varices.

METHODS

Consecutive cirrhosis patients with small varices, without any history of variceal bleed, were randomized to receive propranolol or placebo and to undergo no HVPG, only baseline HVPG, or serial HVPG measurements.

RESULTS

A total of 150 cirrhotics (cirrhosis predominantly viral or alcohol induced) were included (77 in the beta-blocker and 73 in the placebo group). Baseline characteristics were similar. The actuarial 2-year risk of growth of varices (primary endpoint) was 11 and 16% in the propranolol and placebo group, respectively (P = 0.786). Variceal bleeding and mortality were also comparable in the two groups. Similarly, the outcome was not influenced by HVPG measurements (whether serial, only baseline, or no HVPG). A bilirubin level of ≥1.5 mg/dl was found to be an independent predictor of variceal progression.

CONCLUSIONS

In cirrhotics with small esophageal varices, nonselective beta-blockers are unable to prevent the growth of varices, variceal bleed, or mortality. HVPG monitoring of these patients did not change the outcome; however, the role of HVPG-guided therapy modification needs to be studied.

Management of varices in cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

Acute variceal bleeding is a medical emergency and one of the main causes of mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Timely and effective treatment of the acute bleeding episode results in increased survival, and appropriate prophylactic treatment can prevent bleeding or rebleeding from varices.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss the prevention of development and growth of varices, the primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding, the treatment of acute bleeding, and the management of gastric varices. We systematically reviewed studies, without time limits, identified through Medline and searches of reference lists, and provide an overview of the evidence underlying the -treatment options in the management of varices in cirrhosis.

EXPERT OPINION

The management of variceal hemorrhage relies on nonspecific interventions (e.g., adequate fluid resuscitation, airway protection) and on specific interventions. These are routine prophylactic antibiotics, vasoactive drugs and endoscopic treatment. Procedures such as the placement of a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube or a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) can be lifesaving. The primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding is based on nonselective beta-blockers and endoscopy, even though TIPS or, less frequently, surgery have a role in selected cases.

The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)

The creation of an intrahepatic portosystemic shunt via a transjugular approach (TIPS) is an interventional radiological procedure used to treat the complications of portal hypertension. TIPS insertion is principally indicated to prevent or arrest variceal bleeding when medical or endoscopic treatments fail, and in the management refractory ascites. This review discusses the development and execution of the technique, with focus on its clinical efficacy. Patient selection, imaging surveillance, revision techniques, and complications are also discussed.

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

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

Acute variceal bleeding: pharmacological treatment and primary/secondary prophylaxis

Variceal bleeding is one of the most severe complications of portal hypertension related to liver cirrhosis. Primary prophylaxis is considered mandatory in patients with cirrhosis and high-risk oesophageal varices, and once varices have bled, every effort should be made to arrest the haemorrhage and prevent further bleeding episodes. In acute variceal bleeding, vasoactive drugs that lower portal pressure should be started even before endoscopy, and should be maintained for up to 5 days. The choice of vasoactive drug should be made according to local resources. Terlipressin, somatostatin and octreotide can be used; vasopressin plus transdermal nitroglycerin may be used if no other drug is available. In variceal bleeding, antibiotic therapy is also mandatory. In primary and secondary prophylaxis, beta-blockers are the mainstay of therapy. In secondary prophylaxis (but not in primary prophylaxis) these drugs can be combined with organic nitrates.

Portosystemic pressure gradient during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with Viatorr stent graft: what is the critical low threshold to avoid medically uncontrolled low pressure gradient related complications?

BACKGROUND

Inappropriately decreased portosystemic pressure gradient (PSG) during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) can cause fatal complications but the critical low threshold of PSG is still not clear. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the critical low threshold of PSG during TIPS.

METHODS

Sixty-six patients with cirrhosis who successfully underwent de novo TIPS with Viatorr stent grafts were studied. Medically uncontrolled low pressure gradient (LPR) complication was defined as when a patient died, or when acute transplantation or a TIPS reduction procedure was performed due to refractory encephalopathy or the deterioration of hepatic function within 3 months after the procedure. For the determination of the risk group for medically uncontrolled LPR complications, the Child-Pugh score and the model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score showing a 100% negative predictive value was decided on as a threshold for each score. The risk group was defined when either of both scores was higher than its threshold. For the determination of a critical low post-TIPS PSG, a value of post-TIPS PSG showing the highest discrimination power on the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve in the risk group was decided on as a critical low threshold of PSG. The medically uncontrolled LPR complication rates of the patients with the determined threshold or lower were evaluated for the risk group.

RESULTS

Medically uncontrolled LPR complications developed in nine patients (13.6%). Five patients died and four patients had TIPS reduction procedures. Patients with more than 10 on the Child-Pugh score or more than 14 on the MELD score were determined to be the risk group and 34 patients were included. The critical lower threshold of the post-TIPS PSG showing the highest discrimination power on the ROC curve was 5 mmHg (sensitivity 100%, specificity 72%), and the medically uncontrolled LPR complication rates of the patients with 5 mmHg or lower on the post-TIPS PSG were 56.3% (9/16) in the risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

The critical threshold of the post-TIPS PSG to avoid the medically uncontrolled LPR complications of TIPS was >5 mmHg. The PSG should not be reduced below this level in the risk group.

Preventing first variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis

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

The budget impact of endoscopic screening for esophageal varices in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Budget impact model.

SETTING

Hypothetical managed care organization with 1 million covered lives.

PATIENTS

Patients with compensated cirrhosis.

INTERVENTIONS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

Per-member per-month cost.

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

Data on CE remain limited.

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients: evaluation with liver CT

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of routine helical liver CT in the detection and grading of esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 67 consecutive cirrhotic patients who underwent both upper endoscopy and helical liver CT within a 4-week interval were evaluated. The CT protocol included unenhanced, arterial, and portal phases with a collimation of 7-7.5 mm. Two blinded abdominal imagers (6 and 7 years' experience) retrospectively interpreted all CT images to detect the presence of esophageal varices on a 5-point confidence scale and measure the largest varix identified. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed, and the correlation between CT measurements and endoscopic grading, the reference standard, was assessed.

RESULTS

The variceal detection rates for the observers was 92% (11/12) and 92% (11/12) for large (i.e., clinically significant) varices, 53% (16/30) and 60% (18/30) for small varices, and 64% (27/42) and 69% (29/42) for all varices. The area under the ROC curve for the detection of esophageal varices of any size was 0.77 (observer 1) and 0.80 (observer 2). CT variceal grading showed a strong correlation with endoscopic grading for both observers (p < or = 0.001). Using a variceal diameter threshold of 3 mm on CT, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for distinguishing large esophageal varices from small or no varices were 92% (11/12), 84% (46/55), and 85% (57/67), respectively, for both observers.

CONCLUSION

Liver CT is useful for the detection and grading of esophageal varices. A diameter of 3 mm may be an appropriate screening threshold for large clinically significant varices.

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

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

Influence of hepatic venous pressure gradient on the prediction of survival of patients with cirrhosis in the MELD Era

Measurements of portal pressure, usually obtained via the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) may be a prognostic marker in cirrhosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of HVPG on survival in patients with cirrhosis in addition to the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. We also examined whether inclusion of HVPG in a model with MELD variables improves its prognostic ability. Retrospective analyses of all patients who had HVPG measurements between January 1998 and December 2002 were considered. Proportional hazards Cox models were developed. Prognostic calibrative and discriminative ability of the model was evaluated. In this period, 693 patients had a hepatic hemodynamic study, and 393 patients were included. Survival was significantly worse in those patients with greater HVPG value (univariate HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08; P = .001). HVPG remained as an independent variable in a model adjusted by MELD, ascites, encephalopathy, and age (multivariate HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06; P = .05) so that each 1-mmHg increase in HVPG had a 3% increase in death risk. In addition, HVPG as well as MELD score variables and age, significantly contributes to the calibrative predictive capacity of the prognostic model; however, discriminative ability improved only slightly (overall C statistic [95% CI]; MELD score variables: 0.71 [0.62-0.80], MELD score variables, age, and HVPG 0.76: [0.69-0.83]). In conclusion, HVPG has an independent effect on survival in addition to the MELD score. Although inclusion of HVPG and age in a survival predicting model would improve the calibrative ability of MELD, its discriminative ability is not significantly improved.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Standard care for prevention of first esophageal variceal hemorrhage is beta-blockade, but this may be ineffective or unsafe. Our purpose was to compare endoscopic banding with propranolol for prevention of first variceal hemorrhage.

METHODS

In a multicenter, prospective trial, 62 patients with cirrhosis with high-risk esophageal varices were randomized to propranolol (titrated to reducing resting pulse by > or =25%) or banding (performed monthly until varices were eradicated) and were followed up on the same schedule for a mean duration of 15 months. The primary end point was treatment failure, defined as the development of endoscopically documented variceal hemorrhage or a severe medical complication requiring discontinuation of therapy. Direct costs were estimated from Medicare reimbursements and fixed or variable charges for services up to treatment failure.

RESULTS

Background variables of the treatment groups were similar. The trial was stopped early after an interim analysis showed that the failure rate of propranolol was significantly higher than that of banding (6/31 vs. 0/31; difference, 19.4%; P = .0098; 95% confidence interval for true difference, 6.4%-37.2%). Significantly more propranolol than banding patients had esophageal variceal hemorrhage (4/31 vs. 0/31; difference, 12.9%; P = .0443; 95% confidence interval for true difference, 0.8%-29%), and the cumulative mortality rate was significantly higher in the propranolol than in the banding group (4/31 vs. 0/31; difference, 12.9%; P = .0443; 95% confidence interval for true difference, 0.8%-29%). Direct costs of care were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with cirrhosis with high-risk esophageal varices and no history of variceal hemorrhage, propranolol-treated patients had significantly higher failure rates of failure, first esophageal varix hemorrhage, and cumulative mortality than banding patients. Direct costs of medical care were not significantly different.

A placebo-controlled clinical trial of nadolol in the prophylaxis of growth of small esophageal varices in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Beta-blockers are extensively used to prevent variceal bleeding in patients with large esophageal varices. It is not established if beta-blockers delay the growth of small varices.

METHODS

A total of 161 patients with cirrhosis and small esophageal varices (F1 according to the classification of Beppu et al.) without previous bleeding were enrolled. A total of 83 patients were randomized to nadolol (dose adjusted to decrease resting heart rate by 25%; mean dose given, 62 +/- 25 mg/day) and 78 to placebo. The principal end point was occurrence of large esophageal varices (F2 or F3 according to the classification of Beppu et al.). Endoscopic examination was performed after 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months of follow-up. Mean follow-up was 36 months.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were well matched for demographic and clinical characteristics. During the study period, 9 patients randomized to nadolol and 29 randomized to placebo had growth of esophageal varices. At the end of follow-up, the cumulative risk was 20% versus 51% (P < 0.001) (absolute risk difference, 31%; 95% confidence interval, 17%-45%). When possible confounding factors were taken into account, treatment was a significant factor predicting growth of varices (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.95-8.4). The cumulative probability of variceal bleeding was also lower in patients randomized to nadolol (P = 0.02). Survival was not different (P = 0.33). Adverse effects resulting in withdrawal of drug occurred in 9 in the nadolol group and one in the placebo group (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that beta-blocker prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with compensated cirrhosis should be started when small esophageal varices are present.

An evidence-based medicine approach to beta-blocker therapy in patients with cirrhosis

Disease management strategies have gained attention in recent years because of their potential to improve health-related quality of life and prevent excessive resource use. Despite recognition as an important cause of mortality, cirrhosis with portal hypertension has not been widely discussed as a condition amenable to planned care management. Given the effect of variceal hemorrhage as the most immediate life-threatening complication of portal hypertension, a number of high-quality controlled clinical trials have confirmed the efficacy of beta-blocker therapy for primary and secondary prophylaxis. Despite the existence of practice guidelines that incorporate this information, specific clinical scenarios that demand consideration for beta-blocker therapy have not been well described. In this article, a number of hypothetical patient-based cases drawn from the authors' experiences are utilized to illustrate these issues.

Polytetrafluoroethylene-covered nitinol stent-graft for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation: 3-year experience

PURPOSE

To prospectively evaluate the use of a recently developed expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered nitinol stent-graft in preventing the need for repeated intervention after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-three consecutive patients underwent TIPS procedures between January 2000 and February 2002. Minimum patient follow-up was 9 months (mean, 16.3 months). Fifty-six stent-grafts were implanted in 53 patients; eight of the devices were 8 mm in diameter and 48 were 10 mm in diameter. The stent length varied from 4 to 7 cm. Indications for the procedure included recurrence of bleeding after sclerotherapy (28 patients with cirrhosis, one patient without), refractory ascites or hydrothorax (21 patients with cirrhosis, one patient without), and Budd-Chiari syndrome (two patients).

RESULTS

A technical success rate of 100% was obtained, with an early clinical success rate of 96.2%. During the follow-up period, the recurrence rate was 3.4% (one of 29 patients) for bleeding and 9.0% (two of 22 patients) for ascites. Shunt malfunction occurred in nine of 53 patients (16.9%); in one of these nine patients, shunt occlusion was evident after revision, and a parallel shunt was created. The 1-year primary and secondary patency rates were 83.8% and 98.1%, respectively. In this series, the incidence of encephalopathy (included even as a single short-lived episode) was 47.1% (25 of 53 patients). The 30-day mortality rate was 3.8% (two of 53), and the late mortality rate was 17.3% (eight of 46), excluding seven patients who underwent transplantation.

CONCLUSION

The new PTFE-covered nitinol stent-graft used appears to be excellent in preventing the need for repeated interventions. A primary patency rate of 83.8% and a secondary patency rate of 98.1% were achieved.