Controlled trial of ligation plus nadolol versus nadolol alone for the prevention of first variceal bleeding

Combination of carvedilol with variceal band ligation in prevention of first variceal bleed in Child-Turcotte-Pugh B and C cirrhosis with high-risk oesophageal varices: the 'CAVARLY TRIAL'

OBJECTIVES

Beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal band ligation (VBL) have been preferred therapies for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. However, the choice of therapy in patients with advanced liver disease with high-risk varices is not clear. A comparison of these therapies alone or in combination to prevent the first variceal bleed in advanced cirrhosis patients was carried out.

DESIGN

330 Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) B and C cirrhosis patients, with 'high-risk' varices were prospectively enrolled (n=110 per group) to receive carvedilol (group A), VBL (group B) or combination (group C). Primary endpoint was reduction in the incidence of first variceal bleed at 12 months. The secondary endpoints included overall mortality, bleed-related mortality, new-onset decompensation, change in hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG) and treatment-related adverse events.

RESULTS

The patients were predominantly males (85.2%), aged 51.4±10.5 years with CTP score of 8.87±1.24, MELD score 15.17±3.35 and HVPG-16.96±3.57 mm Hg. The overall incidence of variceal bleed was 23.8% (n=78) at 1 year. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that the combination arm (group C) significantly reduced the incidence of first variceal bleed by 62.9% as compared with group B (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.192 to 0.716, p<0.003) and by 69.3% as compared with group A (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.163 to 0.578, <0.001). The overall mortality was 13.6% (45/330). The 1-year mortality in group C was lowest among the three groups (A, B, C=20%, 14.5%, 6.3%, p=0.012). Reduction in HVPG (20.8% vs 25.1%, p=0.54) and the rate of non-response to carvedilol (53.4% vs 41.25%, p=0.154) were not different between group A and C patients. The incidence of new-onset ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, shock, and acute kidney injury and postbleed organ failure was also comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSION

In CTP B and C cirrhosis patients with high-risk varices, combination of carvedilol and VBL is more effective than either therapy alone, for primary prevention of variceal bleeding.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03069339.

Microarray analysis demonstrates up-regulation of the endothelin-1 gene with compensatory down-regulation of the ETA receptor gene in human portal vein

High blood pressure in the portal vein, portal hypertension (PH), is the final common pathway in liver cirrhosis regardless of aetiology. Complications from PH are the major cause of morbidity and mortality in these patients. Current drug therapy to reduce portal pressure is mainly limited to β-adrenergic receptor blockade but approximately 40% of patients do not respond. Our aim was to use microarray to measure the expression of ∼20,800 genes in portal vein from patients with PH undergoing transplantation for liver cirrhosis (PH, n=12) versus healthy vessels (control, n=9) to identify potential drug targets to improve therapy. Expression of 9,964 genes above background was detected in portal vein samples. Comparing PH veins versus control (adjusted P-value < 0.05, fold change > 1.5) identified 548 up-regulated genes and 1,996 down-regulated genes. The 2,544 differentially expressed genes were subjected to pathway analysis. We identified 49 significantly enriched pathways. The endothelin pathway was ranked the tenth most significant, the only vasoconstrictive pathway to be identified. ET-1 gene (EDN1) was significantly up-regulated, consistent with elevated levels of ET-1 peptide previously measured in PH and cirrhosis. ETA receptor gene (EDNRA) was significantly down-regulated, consistent with an adaptive response to increased peptide levels in the portal vein but there was no change in the ETB gene (EDNRB). The results provide further support for evaluating the efficacy of ETA receptor antagonists as a potential therapy in addition to β-blockers in patients with PH and cirrhosis.

Improving primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding by adapting therapy to the clinical stage of cirrhosis. A competing-risk meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Non-selective β-blockers (NSBBs) and endoscopic variceal-ligation (EVL) have similar efficacy preventing first variceal bleeding. Compensated and decompensated cirrhosis are markedly different stages, which may impact treatment outcomes. We aimed to assess the efficacy of NSBBs vs EVL on survival in patients with high-risk varices without previous bleeding, stratifying risk according to compensated/decompensated stage of cirrhosis.

METHODS

By systematic review, we identified RCTs comparing NSBBs vs EVL, in monotherapy or combined, for primary bleeding prevention. We performed a competing-risk, time-to-event meta-analysis, using individual patient data (IPD) obtained from principal investigators of RCTs. Analyses were stratified according to previous decompensation of cirrhosis.

RESULTS

Of 25 RCTs eligible, 14 failed to provide IPD and 11 were included, comprising 1400 patients (656 compensated, 744 decompensated), treated with NSBBs (N = 625), EVL (N = 546) or NSBB+EVL (N = 229). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Overall, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs (subdistribution hazard-ratio (sHR) = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.75-1.49) and with EVL + NSBBs vs either monotherapy, with low heterogeneity (I2  = 28.7%). In compensated patients, mortality risk was higher with EVL vs NSBBs (sHR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.11-2.77) and not significantly lower with NSBBs+EVL vs NSBBs, without heterogeneity (I2  = 0%). In decompensated patients, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs and with NSBBs+EVL vs. either monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with compensated cirrhosis and high-risk varices on primary prophylaxis, NSBBs significantly improved survival vs EVL, with no additional benefit noted adding EVL to NSBBs. In decompensated patients, survival was similar with both therapies. The study suggests that NSBBs are preferable when advising preventive therapy in compensated patients.

Endoscopic band ligation is safe despite low platelet count and high INR

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is used to prevent variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis. The association of thrombocytopenia, high INR (international normalized ratio) and liver dysfunction with the risk of procedure-related bleeding (PRB) remains debated and recommendations are controversial.

METHODS

We analyzed real-life data of cirrhotic patients undergoing elective EBL at two large Viennese centers between Q1/2000-Q1/2018. PRB was defined as bleeding occurring within 30 days after EBL.

RESULTS

We included 617 patients undergoing a total of 1178 prophylactic EBL procedures (median 2 per patient). Sixteen (2.6%) of 617 patients experienced PRB after a median of 12.5 (IQR 17.3) days with no difference in characteristics and laboratory values between the two groups. The proportion of patients with platelets (PLT) < 50 G/L or INR ≥ 1.5 was similar in patients with vs. without PRB. A higher MELD showed a non-significant association with EBL-related bleeding risk (odds ratio, OR 1.07; 95% confidence interval 95% CI 1.00-1.16, p = 0.058). While serum bilirubin was a significant predictor for PRB (OR: 1.10; 95% CI 1.03-1.18), the presence of large varices (OR 0.85 vs. small varices; 95% CI 0.20-3.84), INR (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.10-3.14), PLT (OR 1.00; 95% CI 1.00-1.01) and the use of non-selective betablockers (OR 1.20; CI 95% 0.38-3.76) were not associated with PRB.

CONCLUSION

EBL is safe and procedure-related bleedings are rare (2.6%) including in patients with thrombocytopenia < 50 G/L or high INR ≥ 1.5. Only high MELD, and especially high bilirubin seem to be linked to an increased risk of EBL-related bleeding.

Emerging Therapeutic Targets for Portal Hypertension

Purpose of Review

Portal hypertension is responsible of the main complications of cirrhosis, which carries a high mortality. Recent treatments have improved prognosis, but this is still far from ideal. This paper reviews new potential therapeutic targets unveiled by advances of key pathophysiologic processes.

Recent Findings

Recent research highlighted the importance of suppressing etiologic factors and a safe lifestyle and outlined new mechanisms modulating portal pressure. These include intrahepatic abnormalities linked to inflammation, fibrogenesis, vascular occlusion, parenchymal extinction, and angiogenesis; impaired regeneration; increased hepatic vascular tone due to sinusoidal endothelial dysfunction with insufficient NO availability; and paracrine liver cell crosstalk. Moreover, pathways such as the gut-liver axis modulate splanchnic vasodilatation and systemic inflammation, exacerbate liver fibrosis, and are being targeted by therapy. We have summarized studies of new agents addressing these targets.

Summary

New agents, alone or in combination, allow acting in complementary mechanisms offering a more profound effect on portal hypertension while simultaneously limiting disease progression and favoring regression of fibrosis and of cirrhosis. Major changes in treatment paradigms are anticipated.

Efficacy and Safety of Treatments for Patients With Portal Hypertension and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims: Viral hepatitis are one of the main causes of liver cirrhosis. The treatment of portal hypertension caused by liver cirrhosis is difficult and diverse, and the therapeutic effect is unknown. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of treatments for patients with portal hypertension and cirrhosis, including a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), endoscopic therapy, surgical therapy and medications. Methods: Eligible articles were searched for in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases from their inception until June 2020. Using the "gemtc-0.8.4" package in R v.3.6.3 software and the Just Another Gibbs Sampler v.4.2.0 program, network meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model within a Bayesian framework. The odds ratios for all-cause rebleeding, bleeding-related mortality, overall survival (OS), treatment failure and hepatic encephalopathy were determined within the Bayesian framework. Results: Forty randomized controlled trials were identified, including 4,006 adult patients and nine treatment strategies. Our results showed that distal splenorenal shunt and TIPS provided the best control of hemorrhage. Endoscopic variceal ligation with medication resulted in the highest OS rate. Medication alone resulted in poor OS and treatment failure. Conclusions: We performed a systematic comparison of diverse treatments for cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Our meta-analysis indicated that a TIPS and distal splenorenal shunt resulted in lower rates of rebleeding than did other therapies. Furthermore, drugs are more suitable for combination therapy than monotherapy.

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

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

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.

Perceptions on the management of varices and on the use of albumin in patients with cirrhosis among GI specialists in Austria

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension (PH) causes severe complications in patients with liver cirrhosis, such as variceal bleeding and ascites; however, data on the knowledge and perceptions on guideline recommendations for the management of varices and the use of albumin is scarce.

METHODS

We designed two structured surveys on (i) the management of varices and (ii) the use of albumin for Austrian physicians of specialized Gastro-Intestinal (GI) centers. The interviewed physicians were confronted spontaneously and provided ad hoc responses to the questionnaire.

RESULTS

In total, 158 surveys were completed. Interestingly, many specialists (30%) would recommend a follow-up gastroscopy after 1 year in patients with compensated cirrhosis without varices (i.e., overtreatment). For small varices, 81.5% would use non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) for primary prophylaxis (PP). For PP in patients with large varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) plus NSBB was preferred by 51.4% (i.e., overtreatment). Knowledge on the indication criteria for early TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt) was reported by 54.3%, but only 20% could report these criteria correctly. The majority (87.1%) correctly indicated a preference to use NSBB and EBL for secondary prophylaxis (SP). The majority of participating gastroenterologists reported no restrictions on the use of albumin (89.8%) in their hospitals. Of the interviewed specialists, 63.6% would use albumin in patients with SBP; however, only 11.4% would use the doses recommended by guidelines. The majority of specialists indicated using albumin at the recommended doses for hepatorenal syndrome (HRS-AKI, 86.4%) and for large volume paracentesis (LVP, 73.3%). The individual responses regarding albumin use for infections/sepsis, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and encephalopathy were heterogeneous.

CONCLUSION

The reported management of PH and varices is mostly adherent to guidelines, but endoscopic surveillance in patients without varices is too intense and EBL is overused in the setting of PP. Knowledge on the correct use of early TIPS must be improved among Austrian specialists. Albumin use is widely unrestricted in Austria; however, albumin is often underdosed in established indications.

A novel therapeutic strategy for esophageal varices using endoscopic treatment combined with splenic artery embolization according to the Child-Pugh classification

Variceal hemorrhage may cause high rebleeding and mortality rates. Preventing the first episode of variceal bleeding is mandatory in patients with high-risk esophageal varices (EV). This study aimed to identify factors that predict the recurrence of EV after endoscopic treatment (ET), and to develop a reasonable therapeutic strategy for EV in cirrhosis. From January 2012 to December 2014, 45 patients with cirrhosis and high-risk EV underwent ET, including sclerotherapy and/or ligation. Statistical analyses identified factors associated with the recurrence of EV after ET, and the Kaplan-Meier method determined the cumulative variceal recurrence rates. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year cumulative posttreatment recurrence rates for EV were 13.3%, 29.5%, and 32.2%, respectively. No significant differences were evident between the patients with and without variceal recurrences at 1-year posttreatment. The multivariate regression analyses identified a history of partial splenic embolization (PSE) and the pretreatment Child-Pugh classification as independent predictors of variceal recurrences at 2 years (p < 0.05) and 3 years (p < 0.05) posttreatment. While EV did not recur after ET and splenic artery embolization in cases with Child-Pugh class A, the overall posttreatment variceal recurrence rates were 0% and 66.7% when PSE was performed before and after ET, respectively, in those with Child-Pugh class B or C. Splenic artery embolization significantly reduced the hepatic venous pressure gradient and markedly lowered the Child-Pugh score in 15 patients. Adjunctive PSE and pretreatment Child-Pugh class A could be independently associated with reduced cumulative recurrence rates of EV post-ET. From the perspectives of portal hemodynamics and hepatic function, splenic artery embolization before or after ET could prevent posttreatment variceal recurrence in patients with Child-Pugh class A, and PSE before ET could achieve the long-term eradication of EV following ET in those with Child-Pugh class B or C.

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.

Betablockers do not increase efficacy of band ligation in primary prophylaxis but they improve survival in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is used for primary (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) of variceal bleeding. Current guidelines recommend combined use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and EBL for SP, while in PP either NSBB or EBL should be used.

AIM

To assess (re-)bleeding rates and mortality in cirrhotic patients receiving EBL for PP or SP for variceal bleeding.

METHODS

(Re-)bleeding rates and mortality were retrospectively assessed with and without concomitant NSBB therapy after first EBL in PP and SP.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and sixty-six patients with oesophageal varices underwent EBL from 01/2005 to 06/2015. Among the 284 patients undergoing EBL for PP, n = 101 (35.6%) received EBL only, while n = 180 (63.4%) received EBL + NSBBs. In 482 patients on SP, n = 163 (33.8%) received EBL only, while n = 299 (62%) received EBL + NSBBs. In PP, concomitant NSBB therapy neither decreased bleeding rates (log-rank: P = 0.353) nor mortality (log-rank: P = 0.497) as compared to EBL alone. In SP, similar re-bleeding rates were documented in EBL + NSBB vs EBL alone (log-rank: P = 0.247). However, EBL + NSBB resulted in a significantly lower mortality rate (log-rank: P<0.001). A decreased risk of death with EBL + NSBB in SP (hazard ratio, HR: 0.50; P<0.001) but not of rebleeding, transplantation or further decompensation was confirmed by competing risk analysis. Overall NSBB intake reduced 6-months mortality (HR: 0.53, P = 0.008) in SP, which was most pronounced in patients without severe/refractory ascites (HR: 0.37; P = 0.001) but not observed in patients with severe/refractory ascites (HR: 0.80; P = 0.567).

CONCLUSIONS

EBL alone seems sufficient for PP of variceal bleeding. In SP, the addition of NSBB to EBL was associated with an improved survival within the first 6 months after EBL.

Evaluation and management of variceal bleeding

Acute variceal bleeding is one of the most fatal complications of cirrhosis and is responsible for about one-third of cirrhosis-related deaths. Therefore, every effort should be made to emergently resuscitate the patients, start pharmacotherapy as soon as possible and do endoscopic therapy in a timely manner. Despite the recent advances in treatment, mortality rate is still high. We provide a comprehensive review of evaluation and management of variceal bleeding.

Prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices

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

Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension

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

Endoscopic treatment of esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension with a six-week mortality rate of approximately 20%. Patients with medium- or large-sized varices can be treated for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding using two strategies: non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL). Both treatments are equally effective. Patients with acute variceal bleeding are critically ill patients. The available data suggest that vasoactive drugs, combined with endoscopic therapy and antibiotics, are the best treatment strategy with EVL being the endoscopic procedure of choice. In cases of uncontrolled bleeding, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered stents are recommended. Approximately 60% of the patients experience rebleeding, with a mortality rate of 30%. Secondary prophylaxis should start on day six following the initial bleeding episode. The combination of NSBBs and EVL is the recommended management, whereas TIPS with PTFE-covered stents are the preferred option in patients who fail endoscopic and pharmacologic treatment. Apart from injection sclerotherapy and EVL, other endoscopic procedures, including tissue adhesives, endoloops, endoscopic clipping and argon plasma coagulation, have been used in the management of esophageal varices. However, their efficacy and safety, compared to standard endoscopic treatment, remain to be further elucidated. There are safety issues accompanying endoscopic techniques with aspiration pneumonia occurring at a rate of approximately 2.5%. In conclusion, future research is needed to improve treatment strategies, including novel endoscopic techniques with better efficacy, lower cost, and fewer adverse events.

Primary prevention of bleeding from esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is a life threatening situation with mortality rates of at least 20%. Prophylactic treatment with non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) is recommended for patients with small varices that have not bled but with increased risk for bleeding. The recommended treatment strategies on primary prevention of variceal bleeding in patients with medium and large-sized varices are NSBBs or endoscopic band ligation. Nitrates, shunt surgery and sclerotherapy are not recommended in this setting. In this review, the most recent data on prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding are presented. Available data derived from randomized-controlled trials suggest both treatment strategies, and according to Baveno V consensus in portal hypertension “the choice of treatment should be based on local resources and expertise, patient preference and characteristics, side-effects and contra-indications”.

Therapeutic and prophylactic management of bleeding from oesophageal and gastric varices - recommendations of the Working Group of the National Consultant for Gastroenterology

Gastroesophageal varices are one of the most serious consequences of portal hypertension. One-third of patients with varices will develop variceal haemorrhage. Despite significant improvements in the outcomes of treatment, mortality due to bleeding from gastro-oesophageal varices still remains very high. These recommendations present optimal management of patients with non-bleeding and bleeding varices.

Combined therapies versus monotherapies for the first variceal bleeding in patients with high-risk varices: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The effect of combined therapies (among non-selected beta-blockers [NSBB], endoscopic therapy, and other treatments) on the first variceal bleeding has been evaluated in several randomized controlled trials previously, and the results were controversial. We performed this meta-analysis to assess the effect of combined therapies in patients with high-risk varices without previous variceal bleeding.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for eligible trials. Manual searches were also performed for additional studies. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding, variceal bleeding, mortality, and adverse events were evaluated as end-points by meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled trials with 1571 patients were included. Compared with the NSBB (propranolol or nadolol) or endoscopic therapy alone, all of the combined therapies did not demonstrate significant improvements in variceal bleeding, total upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and mortality. Only the combinations of isosorbide-mononitrate or spironolactone with NSBB tended to decrease the risk of variceal bleeding when compared with the use of NSBB alone (isosorbide-mononitrate plus NSBB vs NSBB: odds ratio = 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.40-1.13, P = 0.13; spironolactone plus NSBB vs NSBB: odds ratio = 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.10-1.69, P = 0.22). Adverse events were more frequently observed in the combined therapy groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidences, no combined therapy can be recommended as the first-line treatment for the primary prevention of variceal bleeding currently. Further studies with large sample sizes and long-term follow up are warranted.

Rebleeding prophylaxis improves outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. A multicenter case-control study

Outcome of variceal bleeding (VB) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is unknown. We compared outcomes after VB in patients with and without HCC. All patients with HCC and esophageal VB admitted between 2007 and 2010 were included. Follow-up was prolonged until death, transplantation, or June 2011. For each patient with HCC, a patient without HCC matched by age and Child-Pugh class was selected. A total of 292 patients were included, 146 with HCC (Barcelona Classification of Liver Cancer class 0-3 patients, A [in 25], B [in 29], C [in 45], and D [in 41]) and 146 without HCC. No differences were observed regarding previous use of prophylaxis, clinical presentation, endoscopic findings, and initial endoscopic treatment. Five-day failure was similar (25% in HCC versus 18% in non-HCC; P = 0.257). HCC patients had greater 6-week rebleeding rate (16 versus 7%, respectively; P = 0.025) and 6-week mortality (30% versus 15%; P = 0.003). Fewer patients with HCC received secondary prophylaxis after bleeding (77% versus 89%; P = 0.009), and standard combination therapy was used less frequently (58% versus 70%; P = 0.079). Secondary prophylaxis failure was more frequent (50% versus 31%; P = 0.001) and survival significantly shorter in patients with HCC (median survival: 5 months versus greater than 38 months in patients without HCC; P < 0.001). Lack of prophylaxis increased rebleeding and mortality. On multivariate analysis Child-Pugh score, presence of HCC, portal vein thrombosis, and lack of secondary prophylaxis were predictors of death.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HCC and VB have worse prognosis than patients with VB without HCC. Secondary prophylaxis offers survival benefit in HCC patients.

A retrospective comparative study of histoacryl injection and banding ligation in the treatment of acute type 1 gastric variceal hemorrhage

BACKGROUND. Esophageal varices extending along lesser curvature side of stomach is classified as GOV1. The optimal therapy for GOV1 bleeding is still undetermined. METHODS. One hundred and sixty-two patients diagnosed as acute hemorrhage from GOV1 were enrolled. At endoscopists' discretion, 118 patients received glue injection (Glue group) and 44 patients received ligation to arrest bleeding [endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) group]. This study aimed to compare hemostasis, rebleeding, complications and mortality within 42 days. RESULTS. Both groups were comparable in baseline data. In 109 patients (92%) in the Glue group and 36 patients (82%) in the EVL group (p = 0.07) 48-h hemostasis was achieved . Hemostasis of active bleeding was achieved in 49 of 55 patients (89%) in the Glue group and 24 of 28 patients (85%) in the EVL group (p = 0.70). Treatment failure was noted in 14% of the Glue group and 23% in the EVL group (p = 0.22). Eight patients in the Glue group and four patients in the EVL group rebled between 5 and 42 days (p = 0.73). A total of 48 and 19 adverse events occurred in the Glue and EVL groups, respectively (p = 0.85). Six patients in the Glue group and seven patients in the EVL group encountered posttreatment gastric ulcer bleeding (p = 0.04). Seventeen patients (14%) in the Glue group and 10 (23%) patients in the EVL group died within 42 days (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS. Banding ligation was similar to glue injection in achieving successful hemostasis of acute bleeding from GOV1. However, a higher incidence of posttreatment ulcer bleeding and mortality may be associated with banding ligation.

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.

Management of varices in patients with cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding remains a life-threatening condition with a 6-week mortality rate of ∼20%. Prevention of variceal bleeding can be achieved using nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic band ligation (EBL), with NSBBs as the first-line treatment. EBL should be reserved for cases of intolerance or contraindications to NSBBs. Although NSBBs cannot be used to prevent varices, if the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is ≤10 mmHg, prognosis is excellent. Survival after acute variceal bleeding has improved over the past three decades, but patients with Child-Pugh grade C cirrhosis remain at greatest risk. Vasoactive drugs combined with endoscopic therapy and antibiotics are the best therapeutic strategy for these patients. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) should be used in patients with uncontrolled bleeding or those who are likely to have difficult-to-control bleeding. Rebleeding from varices occurs in ∼60% of patients 1-2 years after the initial bleeding episode, with a mortality rate of 30%. Secondary prophylaxis should start at day 6 after initial bleeding using a combination of NSBBs and EBL. TIPS with polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents are the preferred option in patients who fail combined treatment with NSBBs and EBL. Despite the improvement in patient survival, further studies are needed to direct the management of patients with gastro-oesophageal varices and variceal bleeding.

Systematic review of noncancer presentations with a median survival of 6 months or less

PURPOSE

We report on clinical indicators of 6-month mortality in advanced noncancer illnesses and the effect of treatment on survival.

METHODS

The MEDLINE database was searched comprehensively to find studies evaluating survival for common advanced noncancer illnesses. We retrieved and evaluated studies that reported a median survival of ≤1 year and evaluated prognostic factors or effect of treatment on survival. We extracted data on presentations with median survivals of ≤6 months for heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, geriatric failure to thrive, cirrhosis, and end-stage renal failure. Independent risk factors for survival were combined and included if their combination was associated with a 6-month mortality of ≥50%.

RESULTS

The search identified 1000 potentially relevant studies, of which 475 were retrieved and evaluated, and 74 were included. We report the common clinical presentations that are consistently associated with a 6-month median survival. Even though advanced noncancer syndromes differ clinically, a universal set of prognostic factors signals progression to terminal disease, including poor performance status, advanced age, malnutrition, comorbid illness, organ dysfunction, and hospitalization for acute decompensation. Generally, a 6-month median survival is associated with the presence of 2-4 of these factors. With few exceptions, these terminal presentations are quite refractory to treatment.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review summarizes prognostic factors common to advanced noncancer illness. There is little evidence at present that treatment prolongs survival at these terminal stages.

Risk assessment of esophageal variceal bleeding in B-viral liver cirrhosis by a liver stiffness measurement-based model

OBJECTIVES

Periodic endoscopic screening for esophageal varices (EVs) and prophylactic treatment for high-risk EVs (HEVs; (i) medium/large EVs and (ii) small EVs with red sign or decompensated cirrhosis) are recommended for cirrhotic patients. We assessed cumulative risks of future EV bleeding (EVB) using the liver stiffness measurement (LSM)-based model, LSM-spleen diameter to platelet ratio score (LSPS=LSM×spleen diameter/platelet count).

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 577 consecutive B-viral cirrhosis patients from 2005 to 2009, none of whom experienced EVB. All underwent laboratory workups, endoscopy, LSM, and ultrasonography. Those with HEVs took nonselective β-blockers as prophylaxis for EVB after diagnosis, if not contraindicated. The major end point was the first EVB event, examined using Kaplan-Meier and Cox-regression methods.

RESULTS

Among whole population, 95.9% negative- /93.5% positive-predictive value by LSPS<3.5/LSPS≥5.5 were provided for predicting the presence of HEV at enrollment, respectively. Among patients with HEV (n=150), 25 experienced their first EVBs during follow-up (median, 29 months). To differentiate EVB risk, we divided them into subgroup 1 (LSPS<6.5) and 2 (LSPS≥6.5) according to LSPS 6.5, a point with maximum sum of sensitivity and specificity from time-dependent receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves (area under ROC curve=0.929). EVB risk was higher in subgroup 2 than subgroup 1 (P<0.001). Multivariate analysis found higher LSPS (P=0.003) a significant predictor, alongside large variceal sizes (P=0.004) and Child-Pugh classifications B/C (P=0.001). Notably, EVB risk of subgroup 1 was as low as that of low-risk EVs (P=0.507).

CONCLUSIONS

LSPS is a reliable predictor for EVB risk. According to risk stratification, different prophylactic treatments should be considered for subgroups with LSPS≥6.5.

Managing varices: drugs, bands, and shunts

Drugs, bands, and shunts have all been used in the treatment of varices and variceal hemorrhage and have resulted in improved outcomes. However, the specific use of each of these therapies depends on the setting (primary or secondary prophylaxis, treatment of AVH) and on patient characteristics. The indications for each are summarized in Table 4.

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.

Application of endoscopy in improving survival of cirrhotic patients with acute variceal hemorrhage

Playing a central role in the modern multidisciplinary management of acute gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage, endoscopy is essential to stratify patient at risk, control active hemorrhage, and prevent first as well as recurrent bleeding. Before endoscopic procedure, antibiotic prophylaxis along with vasoactive medication is now routine practice. Intravenous erythromycin effectively cleanses stomach and may improve the quality of endoscopy. The timing of endoscopy should be on an urgent basis as delay for more than 15 hours after presentation is associated with mortality. Active variceal bleeding on endoscopy in a patient with hepatic decompensation heralds poor prognosis and mandates consideration of aggressive strategy with early portosystemic shunting. Band ligation has become the preferred modality to control and prevent bleeding from esophageal varices, although occasionally sclerotherapy may still be used to achieve hemostasis. Addition of pharmacotherapy with nonselective beta blockade to endoscopic ligation has become the current standard of care in the setting of secondary prophylaxis but remains controversial with inconsistent data for the purpose of primary prophylaxis. Gastric varices extending from esophagus may be treated like esophageal varices, whereas variceal obliteration by tissue glue is the endoscopic therapy of choice to control and prevent bleeding from fundic and isolated gastric varices.

Primary prevention of variceal hemorrhage

Variceal hemorrhage is one of the leading causes of death in patients with cirrhosis, with the 6-week mortality after each episode ranging from 15% to 20%. The two main strategies for primary prevention of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis and varices are the administration of nonselective β-blockers or the obliteration of varices with use of endoscopic band ligation. In this review, we present and critically review the latest data on primary prevention of variceal hemorrhage. We advocate that nonselective β-blockers should be the first line therapy, and band ligation should be offered only in cases of intolerance or side effects. We also explore potential future therapies based on preliminary experimental and clinical data.