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

Relationship between platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio and early rebleeding after endoscopic variceal ligation: a bicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is the primary treatment for esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC). Postoperative rebleeding is a complication of EVL, contributing to over 20% of bleeding-related deaths. This study aims to examine the association between platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and rebleeding within 6 weeks after EVL in patients with LC.

METHODS

The study included 145 eligible patients who underwent their first EVL procedure at Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College between January 2016 and August 2022 (YJS cohort). An external validation cohort comprising 338 eligible patients from NO.2 People's Hospital of Fuyang City (FY cohort) between July 2018 and August 2022 was also utilized.

RESULTS

In the YJS cohort, Multivariate logistic analysis indicated that high PLR is independently associated with early rebleeding after EVL. The restricted cubic spline analysis demonstrated that the risk of rebleeding increases with rising PLR, stabilizing at PLR values greater than 150. Similar findings were validated in the FY cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results have the potential to aid in the identification of high-risk patients for early rebleeding after EVL, thereby enabling improved clinical management and outcomes for these individuals.

Application of a virtual ruler in predicting postoperative rebleeding from esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Esophageal variceal diameter (EVD) is one of the most important predictors of variceal bleeding, as well as an important predictor of the effectiveness of endoscopic esophageal varices (EV) treatments. EVD is currently determined using visual inspection by endoscopic operators, meaning that results can vary widely between operators. This approach also means that cases unsuitable for endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) can be complicated by postoperative hemorrhage. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore the value of a virtual ruler (VR) in predicting rebleeding after the endoscopic treatment of EV in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

We enrolled 588 patients with cirrhosis and EV (with and without gastric varices), who were treated with EVL or endoscopic injection sclerotherapy across 3 hospitals. We categorized participants into 2 groups, a nonbleeding group and a rebleeding group, according to whether they bled again after surgery. We compared basic demographic and clinical data, laboratory tests, EVD, and treatment modalities between the 2 groups. Potential risk factors for rebleeding after EV operations were analyzed using univariate and multivariable regression analyses. Correlations between esophageal variceal rebleeding and EVD were also analyzed, as was the consistency between visual EVD estimates and EVD measured using a VR.

RESULTS

Child-Pugh class, albumin (ALB) levels, prothrombin time (PT), EVD (visual value), EVD (VR value), red sign, and the number of laps used for EVL showed statistically significant differences between the rebleeding and nonbleeding groups. Univariate regression analysis showed that Child-Pugh classification, ALB levels, PT, EVD (VR value), and red sign were strongly associated with rebleeding after endoscopic treatment of EV, whereas multivariable regression analysis showed that Child-Pugh classification, ALB levels, and EVD (VR value) were predictive factors for rebleeding after endoscopic treatment of EV. Differences between visual EVD estimates and VR EVD measurements were large. (Kappa value: 0.391, P < .001). However, the 2 methods showed high agreement for EVD >1 cm (87/95) CONCLUSION: EVD (VR value) can more accurately predict rebleeding rates. It can also provide a basis for selecting appropriate endoscopic treatment modalities for EV and effectively circumvent postoperative EV rebleeding.

Advances in the management of complications from cirrhosis

Cirrhosis with complications of liver decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) constitute a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Portal hypertension is central to the progression of liver disease and decompensation. The most recent Baveno VII guidance included revision of the nomenclature for chronic liver disease, termed compensated advanced chronic liver disease, and leveraged the use of liver stiffness measurement to categorize the degree of portal hypertension. Additionally, non-selective beta blockers, especially carvedilol, can improve portal hypertension and may even have a survival benefit. Procedural techniques with interventional radiology have become more advanced in the management of refractory ascites and variceal bleeding, leading to improved prognosis in patients with decompensated liver disease. While lactulose and rifaximin are the preferred treatments for hepatic encephalopathy, many alternative treatment options may be used in refractory cases and even procedural interventions such as shunt embolization may be of benefit. The approval of terlipressin for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) in the USA has improved the way in which HRS is managed and will be discussed in detail. Malnutrition, frailty, and sarcopenia lead to poorer outcomes in patients with decompensated liver disease and should be addressed in this patient population. Palliative care interventions can lead to improved quality of life and clinical outcomes. Lastly, the investigation of systemic therapies, in particular immunotherapy, has revolutionized the management of HCC. These topics will be discussed in detail in this review.

Influence of further decompensation on survival across clinical stages of decompensated cirrhosis: The role of portal hypertension and HVPG changes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Decompensated-cirrhosis encompasses several stages with different prognosis, such as bleeding, ascites and bleeding-plus-ascites. Development of further-decompensation worsens survival, while non-selective β-blockers (NSBBs) can modify the risk. However, how this applies to each stage is uncertain. We aimed to investigate, in each stage of decompensated-cirrhosis, the influence of further-decompensation on mortality and whether changes in portal-pressure (HVPG) under NSBBs influence these outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with variceal bleeding were consecutively included differentiating those with bleeding-alone from those who also had ascites. Patients with ascites and high-risk varices referred for primary-prophylaxis were also investigated. A baseline haemodynamic study was performed and was repeated after 1-3-months under NSBBs. Outcomes were investigated by competing-risk.

RESULTS

Totally 103 patients had bleeding-alone, 186 bleeding-plus-ascites and 187 ascites-alone. Mean follow-up was 32-months (IQR, 12-60). Patients with bleeding-plus-ascites had higher HVPG and were more hyperdynamic than patients with ascites-alone and these than those with bleeding-alone. At each stage, the mortality risk was more than twice in patients developing further-decompensation vs. those without (p < .001). In each stage, HVPG-decrease under NSBBs showed better discrimination to predict further-decompensation than the baseline MELD, Child-Pugh or HVPG, by time-dependent ROC-curves (c-statistic >70%). At each stage, patients without HVPG-decreases, either ≥10% or ≥20% from the baseline, had higher risk of further-decompensation (sHR from 2.43 to 6.73, p < .01) and worse survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In each stage of decompensated cirrhosis, mortality risk significantly and very markedly increase with further-decompensation. HVPG-non-response to NSBBs may adequately stratify the risk of further decompensation and death, in each stage. This suggests potential benefit with pre-emptive therapies in HVPG-non-responders at each-stage.

Bleeding Complications of Portal Hypertension

In portal hypertension, acute variceal bleed is the cause of 2/3rd of all upper gastrointestinal bleeding episodes. It is a life-threatening emergency in patients with cirrhosis. Nonselective beta-blockers by decreasing the hepatic venous pressure gradient are the mainstay of medical therapy for the prevention of variceal bleeding and rebleeding. Evaluation of the severity of bleed, hemodynamic resuscitation, prophylactic antibiotic, and intravenous splanchnic vasoconstrictors should precede the endoscopy procedure. Endoscopic band ligation is the recommended endotherapy. Rescue transjugular intrahepatic port-systemic shunt (TIPS) is recommended for variceal bleed refractory to endotherapy. In patients with a high risk of failure of combined pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy, pre-emptive TIPS may improve the outcome. For gastric varices, "Sarin classification" is universally applied as it is simple and has therapeutic implication. For IGV1 and GOV2, injection cyanoacrylate glue is considered the endotherapy of choice. Endoscopic ultrasound is a useful modality in the management of gastric varices.

Portal Vein Thrombosis: State-of-the-Art Review

Background: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a rare disease with an estimated incidence of 2 to 4 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. The most common predisposing conditions for PVT are chronic liver diseases (cirrhosis), primary or secondary hepatobiliary malignancy, major infectious or inflammatory abdominal disease, or myeloproliferative disorders. Methods: PVT can be classified on the basis of the anatomical site, the degree of venous occlusion, and the timing and type of presentation. The main differential diagnosis of PVT, both acute and chronic, is malignant portal vein invasion, most frequently by hepatocarcinoma, or constriction (typically by pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma). Results: The management of PVT is based on anticoagulation and the treatment of predisposing conditions. The aim of anticoagulation in acute thrombosis is to prevent the extension of the clot and enable the recanalization of the vein to avoid the development of complications, such as intestinal infarction and portal hypertension. Conclusions: The treatment with anticoagulant therapy favors the reduction of portal hypertension, and this allows for a decrease in the risk of bleeding, especially in patients with esophageal varices. The anticoagulant treatment is generally recommended for at least three to six months. Prosecution of anticoagulation is advised until recanalization or lifelong if the patient has an underlying permanent pro-coagulant condition that cannot be corrected or if there is thrombosis extending to the mesenteric veins.

The Prediction and Treatment of Bleeding Esophageal Varices in the Artificial Intelligence Era: A Review

Esophageal varices (EVs), a significant complication of cirrhosis, present a considerable challenge in clinical practice due to their high risk of bleeding and associated morbidity and mortality. This manuscript explores the transformative role of artificial intelligence (AI) in the management of EV, particularly in enhancing diagnostic accuracy and predicting bleeding risks. It underscores the potential of AI in offering noninvasive, efficient alternatives to traditional diagnostic methods such as esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). The complexity of EV management is highlighted, necessitating a multidisciplinary approach that includes pharmacological therapy, endoscopic interventions, and, in some cases, surgical options tailored to individual patient profiles. Additionally, the paper emphasizes the importance of integrating AI into medical education and practice, preparing healthcare professionals for the evolving landscape of medical technology. It projects a future where AI significantly influences the management of gastrointestinal bleeding, improving clinical decision-making, patient outcomes, and overall healthcare efficiency. The study advocates for a patient-centered approach in healthcare, balancing the incorporation of innovative technologies with ethical principles and the diverse needs of patients to optimize treatment efficacy and enhance healthcare accessibility.

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.

Prevention in Hepatology

The prevention of liver disease has improved significantly in the last few decades, to the point that it can now be considered a true success story. The wide variety of interventions, including comprehensive vaccination strategies, novel medications, lifestyle changes, and even preventive surgeries, have reduced the morbidity and mortality of chronic liver diseases. However, the prevalence of chronic liver diseases is increasing worldwide. Currently, fatty liver disease alone is estimated to be present in as much as 30% of the adult population. Furthermore, there is a trend towards increasing incidences of chronic hepatitis B, and a global lack of success in efforts to eliminate chronic hepatitis C. Thus, improving and efficiently rolling out existing and successful prevention strategies for chronic liver diseases will play an essential role in healthcare throughout the upcoming decades. In this review, we summarize the current options and concepts for preventing chronic liver diseases, highlight their limitations, and provide an outlook on probable future developments to improve awareness, integrated care, and the analysis of big data.

Portal hypertension and emergency care

OBJECTIVE

Aim: To evaluate the peculiarities of the course of complications and the provision of care for portal hypertension associated with the development of diureticresistant ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatorenal syndrome, and variceal bleeding.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and Methods: This research is based on a review of the literature in PubMed, CrossRef, Google Scholar sources on complicated portal hypertension. Such complications of portal hypertension as spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, ascites, hepatorenal sуndrome, variceal bleeding caused by sinistral portal hypertension are considered. The effectiveness of interventional treatment methods and laparoscopic surgical interventions has been demonstrated.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: Diagnosis and treatment of patients with complicated portal hypertension requires a multidisciplinary approach, which is due to the diverse pathophysiological process of portal hypertension. The possibilities of providing emergency care to this category of patients depend on the level of medical training of the staff, the possibilities of medical and technical support in the provision of interventional care, the ineffectiveness of which necessitates surgical treatment using minimally invasive technologies.

How do network meta-analyses address intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence: a systematic survey

OBJECTIVES

To describe how systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) that used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) NMA approach addressed intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence.

DESIGN

Systematic survey.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from September 2014 to October 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials with aggregate data NMAs that used the GRADE NMA approach for assessing certainty of evidence.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We documented how reviewers described methods for addressing intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence, how often they rated down for intransitivity and their explanations for rating down.

RESULTS

Of the 268 eligible systematic reviews, 44.8% (120/268) mentioned intransitivity when describing methods for assessing the certainty of evidence. Of these, 28.3% (34/120) considered effect modifiers and from this subset, 67.6% (23/34) specified the effect modifiers; however, no systematic review noted how they chose the effect modifiers. 15.0% (18/120) mentioned looking for differences between the direct comparisons that inform the indirect estimate. No review specified a threshold for difference in effect modifiers between the direct comparisons that would lead to rating down for intransitivity. Reviewers noted rating down indirect evidence for intransitivity in 33.1% of systematic reviews, and noted intransitivity for network estimates in 23.0% of reviews. Authors provided an explanation for rating down for intransitivity in 59.6% (31/52) of the cases in which they rated down. Of the 31 in which they provided an explanation, 74.2% (23/31) noted they detected differences in effect modifiers and 67.7% (21/31) specified in what effect modifiers they detected differences.

CONCLUSIONS

A third of systematic reviews with NMAs using the GRADE approach rated down for intransitivity. Limitations in reporting of methods to address intransitivity proved considerable. Whether the problem is that reviewers neglected to address rating down for transitivity at all, or whether they did consider but not report, is not clear. At minimum systematic reviews with NMAs need to improve their reporting practices regarding intransitivity; it may well be that they need to improve their practice in transitivity assessment. How to best address intransitivity may remain unclear for many reviewers thus additional GRADE guidance providing practical instructions for addressing intransitivity may be desirable.

Carvedilol Versus Other Nonselective Beta Blockers for Variceal Bleeding Prophylaxis and Death: A Network Meta-analysis

Background and Aims

We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis (NWM) to examine comparative effectiveness of non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) on prophylaxis of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding (GVB) and mortality benefit.

Methods

MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE databases were searched for eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from inception to July 3, 2021. Outcomes of interest included primary/secondary prophylaxis of GVB, failure to achieve hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) decremental response, liver-related and all-cause mortality. A Bayesian NWM was performed to derive relative risk (RR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The ranking probability of each NSBB was assessed by surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).

Results

Thirty-three RCTs including 3,188 cirrhosis patients with gastroesophageal varices were included. Compared with placebo, nadolol ranked first for reducing variceal bleeding [RR:0.25, (95% CrI:0.11-0.51); SUCRA:0.898], followed by carvedilol [RR:0.33, (95% CrI: 0.11-0.88); SUCRA:0.692] and propranolol [RR:0.52, (95% CrI:0.37-0.75); SUCRA:0.405]. Carvedilol was more effective than propranolol in achieving HVPG decremental response [RR:0.43, (95% CrI: 0.26-0.69)]. Carvedilol ranked first for reducing all-cause mortality [RR: 0.32, (95% CrI:0.17-0.57); SUCRA:0.963), followed by nadolol [RR:0.48, (95% CI:0.29-0.77); SUCRA:0.688], and propranolol [RR:0.77, (95% CI:0.58-1.02); SUCRA: 0.337]. Similar findings were observed for liver-related mortality. Carvedilol ranked the safest. The RR of adverse events was 4.38, (95% CrI:0.33-161.4); SUCRA:0.530, followed by propranolol [RR: 7.54, (95% CrI:1.90-47.89); SUCRA:0.360], and nadolol [RR: 18.24, (95% CrI:91.51-390.90); SUCRA:0.158].

Conclusions

Carvedilol is the preferred NSBB with better survival benefit and lower occurrence of adverse events among patients with gastroesophageal varices.

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.

Diabetes impairs the haemodynamic response to non-selective betablockers in compensated cirrhosis and predisposes to hepatic decompensation

BACKGROUND

Non-selective betablockers (NSBBs) reduce the risk of hepatic decompensation in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD). Metabolic co-morbidities (MetC) are increasingly observed in cACLD patients.

AIMS

To investigate the impact of MetC on the haemodynamic effects of NSBB and hepatic decompensation in cACLD.

METHODS

cACLD patients undergoing paired hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurements before/under NSBB therapy were retrospectively considered for this study. We recorded baseline characteristics on MetC (obesity, dyslipidaemia and diabetes), as well as hepatic decompensation and liver-related mortality during follow-up.

RESULTS

We included 92 patients (Child-A n = 80, 87%; Child-B n = 12, 13%). MetC were found in 34 (37%) patients: 19 (20.7%) with obesity, 14 (15.2%) with dyslipidaemia and 23 (34.8%) with diabetes. The median baseline HVPG of 18 (IQR:15-21) mmHg decreased to 15 (IQR:9-12) mmHg under NSBB. HVPG-response (decrease ≥10% or to ≤12 mmHg) was achieved in 60 (65.2.%) patients. Patients with diabetes (OR: 0.35, p = 0.021) and higher BMI (OR: 0.89 per kg/m2 , p = 0.031) were less likely to achieve HVPG-response. During a median follow-up of 2.3 (0.5-4.2) years, 18 (19.5%) patients experienced hepatic decompensation. Child-B (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, aSHR: 4.3 [95% CI:1.5-12.2], p = 0.006), HVPG-response (aSHR: 0.3 [95% CI:0.1-0.9], p = 0.037) and diabetes (aSHR: 2.8 [95% CI:1.1-7.2], p = 0.036) were independently associated with hepatic decompensation.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with cACLD, diabetes and a higher BMI impair the HVPG-response to NSBB. Furthermore, diabetes-independently from Child B and lack of HVPG-response-increases the risk of hepatic decompensation.

Compensated liver cirrhosis: Natural course and disease-modifying strategies

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

Management of Portal Hypertension in Patients with Acute-on-Chronic Liver Disease

Portal hypertension is central to the pathogenesis of complications of cirrhosis, including acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). Both nonselective beta-blockers and preemptive transjugular portal-systemic stent shunt can lower portal pressure, reducing the risk of variceal bleeding, a known trigger for ACLF. However, in patients with advanced cirrhosis, both could potentially induce ACLF by causing hemodynamic instability and hepatic ischemia, respectively, and therefore must be used with caution. Lowering portal pressure with vasoconstrictor such as terlipressin can reverse the kidney failure but careful patient selection is key for success, with careful monitoring for complications.

Management of severe peri-operative bleeding: Guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care: Second update 2022

BACKGROUND

Management of peri-operative bleeding is complex and involves multiple assessment tools and strategies to ensure optimal patient care with the goal of reducing morbidity and mortality. These updated guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) aim to provide an evidence-based set of recommendations for healthcare professionals to help ensure improved clinical management.

DESIGN

A systematic literature search from 2015 to 2021 of several electronic databases was performed without language restrictions. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies and to formulate recommendations. A Delphi methodology was used to prepare a clinical practice guideline.

RESULTS

These searches identified 137 999 articles. All articles were assessed, and the existing 2017 guidelines were revised to incorporate new evidence. Sixteen recommendations derived from the systematic literature search, and four clinical guidances retained from previous ESAIC guidelines were formulated. Using the Delphi process on 253 sentences of guidance, strong consensus (>90% agreement) was achieved in 97% and consensus (75 to 90% agreement) in 3%.

DISCUSSION

Peri-operative bleeding management encompasses the patient's journey from the pre-operative state through the postoperative period. Along this journey, many features of the patient's pre-operative coagulation status, underlying comorbidities, general health and the procedures that they are undergoing need to be taken into account. Due to the many important aspects in peri-operative nontrauma bleeding management, guidance as to how best approach and treat each individual patient are key. Understanding which therapeutic approaches are most valuable at each timepoint can only enhance patient care, ensuring the best outcomes by reducing blood loss and, therefore, overall morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSION

All healthcare professionals involved in the management of patients at risk for surgical bleeding should be aware of the current therapeutic options and approaches that are available to them. These guidelines aim to provide specific guidance for bleeding management in a variety of clinical situations.

Pharmacotherapies for Portal Hypertension: Current Status and Expanding Indications

Purpose

Non-selective beta blockers remain pharmacotherapy of choice for prevention of first episode of variceal bleeding (primary prevention) and for prevention of its recurrence after initial hemostasis (secondary prophylaxis). This review will update the current and emerging pharmacological therapies for portal hypertension.

Recent findings

Data have emerged on carvedilol in preventing hepatic decompensation and improving patient survival among patients with clinically significant portal hypertension. Because measurement of WHVP is invasive and not feasible in routine practice, non-invasive tests with liver stiffness measurement in combination with platelet count may be accurate in identifying clinically significant portal hypertension.

Summary

Carvedilol is more effective in reducing portal pressure compared to nadolol or propranolol. Its use has expanded to reduce risk of hepatic decompensation among patients with CSPH, which can be identified non-invasively using liver stiffness and platelet count. Studies are needed on non-invasive biomarkers to guide and optimize pharmacological treatment of portal hypertension.

Feasibility of Continuous Monitoring of Endoscopy Performance and Adverse Events: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

We integrated a standardized questionnaire focusing on adverse events and performance measures in gastrointestinal endoscopy as a mandatory component of the electronical medical record.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted using prospectively collected data on quality parameters and adverse events (AEPM) for all diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic procedures at our center between 2018 and 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 7532 consecutive endoscopic procedures were performed in 5035 patients. The proportion of high-risk examinations and high-risk patients was 20% and 23%, respectively. Severe adverse events (AEs, n = 21) occurred in 0.3% of procedures and significantly more often in patients with an ASA score > II (0.6%, p < 0.01). We observed no long-term morbidity after severe AEs. Mortality was 0.03% (n = 2). Following screening colonoscopy (n = 242), four endoscopists documented AEPM in more than 98% of the examinations. The cecal intubation rate was 97%, and the mean adenoma detection rate 60%. The quality of lavage was documented in 97% (rated as good in 70% and moderate in 24%).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of adverse events is significantly increased in patients with an ASA score > II, which should be considered when choosing treatment methods and precautionary measures. Continuous recording of AEPM can be effectively integrated into the clinical reporting process, enabling analysis of the data and feedback to be provided to endoscopists.

[Current diagnostics and treatment of portal hypertension]

In industrial nations portal hypertension is mostly a consequence of liver cirrhosis and is a prerequisite for complications, such as esophageal varices and ascites. The pathophysiology of portal hypertension is complex. It is defined as an increase in the hepatovenous pressure gradient to > 5 mm Hg, with complications to be expected at ≥ 10 mm Hg. Measurement of the pressure of the hepatic vein occlusion is the gold standard for estimating portal pressure but this is not very practical. Liver elastography, in particular, has proven to be an effective noninvasive tool to identify patients with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). Current treatment concepts address the CSPH even before the onset of complications to reduce the likelihood of decompensation. In addition to beta blockers, a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt is the most important procedure to lower portal vein pressure and enables an improvement in the prognosis of selected patients.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD; due to viruses, alcohol, and/or nonobese [BMI < 30 kg/m²] nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) and clinically significant portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] > 10 mmHg and/or liver stiffness by transient elastography > 25 kPa) should receive, if no contraindications, nonselective beta blocker (NSBB) therapy (preferably carvedilol) to prevent the development of variceal bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in those patients unable to receive NSBB therapy with a screening upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy that demonstrates high risk esophageal varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the endoscopic prophylactic treatment of choice. EBL should be repeated every 2-4 weeks until variceal eradication is achieved. Thereafter, surveillance EGD should be performed every 3-6 months in the first year following eradication.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage (UGIH) and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 70 g/L prompting RBC transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin of 70-90 g/L is desired.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends that patients with ACLD presenting with suspected acute variceal bleeding be risk stratified according to the Child-Pugh score and MELD score, and by documentation of active/inactive bleeding at the time of upper GI endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5 : ESGE recommends the vasoactive agents terlipressin, octreotide, or somatostatin be initiated at the time of presentation in patients with suspected acute variceal bleeding and be continued for a duration of up to 5 days.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends antibiotic prophylaxis using ceftriaxone 1 g/day for up to 7 days for all patients with ACLD presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage, or in accordance with local antibiotic resistance and patient allergies.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends, in the absence of contraindications, intravenous erythromycin 250 mg be given 30-120 minutes prior to upper GI endoscopy in patients with suspected acute variceal hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends that, in patients with suspected variceal hemorrhage, endoscopic evaluation should take place within 12 hours from the time of patient presentation provided the patient has been hemodynamically resuscitated.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 : ESGE recommends EBL for the treatment of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH).Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 : ESGE recommends that, in patients at high risk for recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding following successful endoscopic hemostasis (Child-Pugh C  ≤ 13 or Child-Pugh B > 7 with active EVH at the time of endoscopy despite vasoactive agents, or HVPG > 20 mmHg), pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) within 72 hours (preferably within 24 hours) must be considered.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 11 : ESGE recommends that, for persistent esophageal variceal bleeding despite vasoactive pharmacological and endoscopic hemostasis therapy, urgent rescue TIPS should be considered (where available).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 12 : ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for acute gastric (cardiofundal) variceal (GOV2, IGV1) hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 13: ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or EBL in patients with GOV1-specific bleeding.Strong recommendations, moderate quality evidence. 14: ESGE suggests urgent rescue TIPS or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for gastric variceal bleeding when there is a failure of endoscopic hemostasis or early recurrent bleeding.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 15: ESGE recommends that patients who have undergone EBL for acute EVH should be scheduled for follow-up EBLs at 1- to 4-weekly intervals to eradicate esophageal varices (secondary prophylaxis).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 16: ESGE recommends the use of NSBBs (propranolol or carvedilol) in combination with endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis in EVH in patients with ACLD.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

Esophageal variceal ligation plus sclerotherapy vs. ligation alone for the treatment of esophageal varices

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) vs. EVL combined with endoscopic injection sclerosis (EIS) in the therapy of esophageal varices.

METHODS

Patients from January 2017 to August 2021 who received EVL alone (control group) or EVL plus EIS (intervention group) were enrolled in this retrospective study. Efficacy, including rebleeding (clinically hematemesis or melena, confirmed by endoscopy as esophagogastric varices bleeding), variceal recurrence rate (the presence of esophagogastric varices which is needed to be treated again) the number of sessions performed to complete eradication of varices, and safety (adverse events) were compared. The variceal recurrence-associated factors were derived by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

The variceal recurrence and rebleeding rate in the intervention group showed significantly lower than the control group (2.6% vs 10.3%, P = 0.006 and 20.7% vs 37.5%, P = 0.029, P = 0.006, respectively, in the 12-month follow-up). The adverse events (fever, chest pain, swallowing, and esophageal stricture) showed no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). Further research showed that the efficacy of the intervention group was better than the control group only achieved in prophylactically endoscopic treatment patients. The diameter of esophageal varices and gastric varices co-exist showed significant effects on variceal recurrence in intervention group [odds ratio (OR) = 15.856; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.709-160.143; P = 0.016 and OR = 4.5; 95% CI, 1.42-20.028; P = 0.021; respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention group may obtain lower recurrence, rebleeding rate, and fewer sessions performed to complete eradication of varices (number of sessions) and similar incidence of adverse events, especially for prophylactically treatment. Among the intervention group, the diameter of esophageal varices and gastric varices were closely associated with variceal recurrence.

Carvedilol reduces the risk of decompensation and mortality in patients with compensated cirrhosis in a competing-risk meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Whether non-selective β-blockers can prevent decompensation of cirrhosis warrants clarification. Carvedilol might be particularly effective since its intrinsic vasodilatory activity may ameliorate hepatic vascular resistance, a major mechanism of portal hypertension in early cirrhosis. We assessed whether carvedilol may prevent decompensation and improve survival in patients with compensated cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH).

METHODS

By systematic review we identified randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carvedilol vs. control therapy (no-active treatment or endoscopic variceal ligation [EVL]) in patients with cirrhosis and CSPH without previous bleeding. We performed a competing-risk time-to-event meta-analysis using individual patient data (IPD) obtained from principal investigators of RCTs. Only compensated patients were included. Primary outcomes were prevention of decompensation (liver transplantation and death were competing events) and death (liver transplantation was a competing event). Models were adjusted using propensity scores for baseline covariates with the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach.

RESULTS

Among 125 full-text studies evaluated, 4 RCTs were eligible. The 4 provided IPD and were included, comprising 352 patients with compensated cirrhosis, 181 treated with carvedilol and 171 controls (79 received EVL and 92 placebo). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Standardized differences were <10% by IPTW. The risk of developing decompensation of cirrhosis was lower with carvedilol than in controls (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 0.506; 95% CI 0.289-0.887; p = 0.017; I2 = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.880), mainly due to a reduced risk of ascites (SHR 0.491; 95% CI 0.247-0.974; p = 0.042; I2 = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.384). The risk of death was also lower with carvedilol (SHR 0.417; 95% CI 0.194-0.896; p = 0.025; I2 = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.989).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term carvedilol therapy reduced decompensation of cirrhosis and significantly improved survival in compensated patients with CSPH. This suggests that screening patients with compensated cirrhosis for CSPH to enable the prompt initiation of carvedilol could improve outcomes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019144786.

LAY SUMMARY

The transition from compensated cirrhosis to decompensated cirrhosis is associated with markedly reduced life expectancy. Therefore, preventing decompensation in patients with compensated cirrhosis would be associated with greatly improved patient outcomes. There has been controversy regarding the use of non-selective β-blockers (portal pressure-lowering medications) in patients with cirrhosis and elevated portal blood pressure (portal hypertension). Herein, using a competing-risk meta-analysis to optimize sample size and properly investigate cirrhosis as a multistate disease and outcomes as time-dependent events, we show that carvedilol (a non-selective β-blocker) is associated with a reduced risk of decompensating events and improved survival in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

Antibiotics and probiotics on hepatic venous pressure gradient in cirrhosis: A systematic review and a meta-analysis

Background

Modulation of the gut microbiome could favorably alter the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) in cirrhosis and portal hypertension (PH).

Aim

This meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of microbiome-targeted therapies (MTTs) on HVPG in persons with cirrhosis and PH.

Methods

PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) analyzing the effects on HVPG in people with cirrhosis who received MTTs. Clinical outcomes were pooled using RevMan5.3 software. A trial sequential analysis was applied to calculate the required information size and evaluate the credibility of the meta-analysis results.

Results

A total of six studies were included. MTTs were associated with a reduction of 1.22 mm Hg in HVPG (95% CI: -2.31, -0.14 mmHg, P = 0.03). Subgroup analysis showed a greater reduction with longer duration (-1.88 mmHg;95% CI: -3.23, -0.53; P = 0.006). In the trial sequential analysis of HVPG reduction, the cumulative Z curve crossed the traditional significance boundary without the achievement of required information size (330).

Conclusions

MTTs may be associated with a reduction in HVPG in patients with cirrhosis and PH. Microbiome-targeted therapies merit additional large-sample studies to define the efficacy of HVPG.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO 2020: CRD4202021609.

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

Aim

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Management of Liver Decompensation in Advanced Chronic Liver Disease: Ascites, Hyponatremia, and Gastroesophageal Variceal Bleeding

Portal hypertension is a major complication of cirrhosis characterized by a pathological hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) ≥ 5 mmHg. The structural changes observed in the liver leading to intrahepatic vascular resistance and, consequently, portal hypertension appear in the early stages of cirrhosis. Clinically significant portal hypertension (HVPG ≥ 10 mmHg) is associated with several clinical consequences, such as ascites, hyponatremia, gastroesophageal variceal bleeding, hepatorenal syndrome, cardiopulmonary complications, adrenal insufficiency, and hepatic encephalopathy. The diagnosis and management of these complications depend on their early identification and treatment. Regarding ascites, diuretics are a useful treatment, although plasma sodium levels must be properly controlled to avoid hyponatremia. The management of hypovolemic hyponatremia usually consists in stopping diuretics and the administration of volume. On the contrary, hypervolemic hyponatremia is managed with fluid and sodium restriction. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) should be considered in patients with refractory ascites. Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding should be based mainly on non-selective beta-blockers. Management of acute gastroesophageal variceal bleeding includes vasoactive drugs and endoscopic band ligation and, in patients at high risk of failure and rebleeding, preemptive use of TIPS. Secondary prophylaxis with a combination of non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic band ligation is the treatment of choice. This article focuses on the management of ascites, hyponatremia, and gastroesophageal variceal bleeding.

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

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

The prognostic value of HVPG-response to non-selective beta-blockers in patients with NASH cirrhosis and varices

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis has become a leading cause of cirrhosis. The prognostic value of (HVPG)-guided NSBB prophylaxis remains to be investigated in the setting of NASH cirrhosis.

METHODS

Patients with NASH cirrhosis and varices undergoing HVPG-guided NSBB therapy were included. HVPG-response to NSBBs was evaluated within a median 52 (IQR:28-71) days after baseline measurement. HVPG-Response was defined as a decrease of ≥10% from baseline or below <12 mmHg. The composite endpoint was defined as variceal bleeding, decompensation, and liver-related death.

RESULTS

Thirtyeight patients were included: Child-A/B:33(87%), Child-C:5(13%) median HVPG:19.7 ± 4.7 mmHg. 21(55.3%) patients achieved HVPG-response to NSBB. Presence of diabetes(aOR:0.16, p = 0.038) and arterial blood pressure (aOR:1.07, p = 0.044) were independently associated with NSBB-response. While NSBB-HVPG-responders showed fewer decompensations within 90 days (n = 1(5%) vs. n = 3(29%), p = 0.172), only Child-Pugh stage B/C (p = 0.001), MELD ≥ 15(p = 0.021) and HVPG ≥ 20 mmHg(p = 0.011) predicted the composite endpoint at 90 days. Similarly, after 2years of follow-up, only Child-Pugh stage (B:p = 0.001, C:p < 0.001), MELD ≥ 15 (p = 0.021), HVPG≥20 mmHg (p = 0.011) predicted the composite endpoint. Importantly, all bleeding events occurred in HVPG-NSBB non-responders.

CONCLUSION

HVPG-response to NSBB was achieved in 55.3% of NASH patients with varices and this seemed to protect from variceal bleeding. However, only baseline HVPG ≥ 20 mmHg, Child-Pugh stage B/C and MELD ≥ 15 were predictors of decompensation/death in patients with NASH cirrhosis and varices.

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

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

Network Meta-Analysis Techniques for Synthesizing Prevention Science Evidence

Network meta-analysis is a popular statistical technique for synthesizing evidence from studies comparing multiple interventions. Benefits of network meta-analysis, over more traditional pairwise meta-analysis approaches, include evaluating efficacy/safety of interventions within a single framework, increased precision, comparing pairs of interventions that have never been directly compared in a trial, and providing a hierarchy of interventions in terms of their effectiveness. Network meta-analysis is relatively underutilized in prevention science. This paper therefore presents a primer of network meta-analysis for prevention scientists who wish to apply this method or to critically appraise evidence from publications using the method. We introduce the key concepts and assumptions of network meta-analysis, namely, transitivity and consistency, and demonstrate their applicability to the field of prevention science. We then illustrate the method using a network meta-analysis examining the comparative effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions for preventing hazardous drinking among college students. We provide data and code for all examples. Finally, we discuss considerations that are particularly relevant in network meta-analyses in the field of prevention, such as including non-randomized evidence.

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.

β-blockers in advanced cirrhosis: More friend than enemy

Nonselective beta-adrenergic blocker (NSBB) therapy for the prevention of initial and recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with gastroesophageal varices has been used for the past four decades. NSBB therapy is considered the cornerstone of treatment for varices, and has become the standard of care. However, a 2010 study from the group that pioneered β-blocker therapy suggested a detrimental effect of NSBBs in decompensated cirrhosis, especially in patients with refractory ascites. Since then, numerous additional studies have incompletely resolved whether NSBBs are deleterious, although more recent evidence weighs against a harmful effect. The possibility of a "therapeutic window" has also been raised. We aimed to review the literature to analyze the pros and cons of using NSBBs in patients with cirrhosis, not only with respect to bleeding or mortality but also to other potential benefits and risks. β-blockers are highly effective in preventing first bleeding and recurrent bleeding. Furthermore, NSBBs improve congestion/ischemia of the gut mucosa, decrease intestinal permeability, and therefore indirectly alleviate systemic inflammation. β-blockers shorten the electrocardiographic prolonged QTc interval and may also decrease the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. On the other hand, the possibility of deleterious effects in cirrhosis has not been completely eliminated. NSBBs may be associated with an increased risk of portal vein thrombosis, although this could be correlational artifact. Overall, we conclude that β-blockers in cirrhosis are much more of a friend than enemy.

Efficacy and Safety of Ligation Combined With Sclerotherapy for Patients With Acute Esophageal Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhosis: A Meta-Analysis

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic variceal ligation + endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EVL+EIS) to control acute variceal bleeding (AVB). Methods: Online databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine (CBM) disc, VIP, and Wanfang, were searched to identify the studies comparing the differences between EVB+EIS and EVB, EIS from the inception of the databases up to December 30, 2020. STATA 13.0 was used for the meta-analysis. Results: A total of eight studies involving 595 patients (317 patients in the EVL group and 278 patients in the EVL+EIS group) were included. The results of the meta-analysis did not reveal any statistically significant differences in the efficacy of acute bleeding control (P = 0.981), overall rebleeding (P = 0.415), variceal eradication (P = 0.960), and overall mortality (P = 0.314), but a significant difference was noted in the overall complications (P = 0.01). Conclusion: EVL is superior to the combination of EVL and EIS in safety, while no statistically significant differences were detected in efficacy. Further studies should be designed with a large sample size, multiple centers, and randomized controlled trials to assess both clinical interventions.

Prevention of Variceal Bleeding and Rebleeding by Nonselective Beta-Blockers: A Tailored Approach

Nonselective beta-blockers represent the mainstay of medical therapy in the prophylaxis of variceal bleeding and rebleeding in patients with portal hypertension. Their efficacy has been demonstrated by numerous trials; however, there exist safety concerns in advanced disease, such as in patients with refractory ascites. Importantly, nonselective beta-blockers also exert nonhemodynamic beneficial effects that may contribute to a prolonged decompensation-free survival, as recently shown in the PREDESCI trial. This review summarizes the current evidence on nonselective beta-blocker therapy and proposes a tailored, patient-centered approach for the use of nonselective beta-blockers in patients with portal hypertension.

Mortality, Risk Factors and Disparities Associated with Esophageal Variceal Bleeding in Children's Hospitals in the US

OBJECTIVES

To use a large administrative database to determine the mortality, risk factors, and comorbidities of esophageal variceal bleeding in children.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using Pediatric Health Information System data from 50 tertiary children's hospitals in the US. International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes (FY 2020 ICD-10 update and revision 10 of ICD-9) from 2004 through 2019 identified children 18 years and younger with variceal bleeding and complications. Univariate analyses used the Student t -test for continuous variables (age) and the χ² test for categorical variables (all others). A mixed-effects linear regression was performed for multiple variables.

RESULTS

There were 1902 patients who had 3399 encounters for esophageal variceal bleeding. The mortality rate for variceal bleeding was 7.3%, increasing to 8.8% by 6 weeks; any mortality during the study was 20.1%. Transfusion was required in 54.7% of encounters, and 42.6% were admitted to the intensive care unit. Variceal bleeding encounters were complicated by peptic ulcer disease (6.9%), bacteremia (11.4%), acute renal failure (5.1%), mechanical ventilation (18%), ascites (21.3%), and peritonitis (3.3%). Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression showed that Black race (OR, 2.59; P < .001) or Hispanic ethnicity (OR, 2.31; P = .001), but not sex, household income, or insurance type, were associated with increased mortality. Bacteremia, peritonitis, mechanical ventilation, acute renal failure, and transfusion were associated with higher mortality (ORs of 2.29, 2.18, 1.93, 6.33, and 1.81, respectively; P < .001, .005, .011, <.001, and .005, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The 6-week mortality rate for variceal bleeding in children is 8.8%. Black or Hispanic children are at higher risk of dying. Serious morbidities associated with variceal hemorrhage impact mortality. These data can inform consideration of prophylactic or therapeutic interventions for children at risk.

The longitudinal outcomes of applying non-selective beta-blockers in portal hypertension: real-world multicenter study

BACKGROUND/AIM

We investigated the effect of non-selective β-blockers (NSBB) in real-world situations and whether low-dose NSBB is beneficial compared to maximally tolerated doses.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 740 patients with cirrhosis requiring prophylactic treatment of esophageal varices: 473 primary prophylaxis (PP: NSBB = 349, non-NSBB = 124) and 267 secondary prophylaxis (SP: NSBB = 200, non-NSBB = 67). The NSBB group was divided into low-dose (≤ 80 mg/day) and high-dose (> 80 mg/day).

RESULTS

In the PP group, NSBB treatment reduced mortality and showed the most pronounced effect in patients with moderate/severe ascites (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; p < 0.01), HVPG ≥ 16 mmHg (HR, 0.53; p = 0.04), or CTP class B/C (HR, 0.46; p < 0.01) but not in those with no/mild ascites, HVPG < 16 mmHg, or CTP class A. Low-dose NSBB group showed a significant reduction in mortality compared with non-NSBB (moderate/severe ascites: HR, 0.61; p = 0.02 and CTP class B/C: HR, 0.41; p < 0.01) and the effect size was stronger than the high-dose NSBB. NSBB was associated with a reduced risk of infection (HR, 0.36; p = 0.01). In the SP group, NSBB prolonged survival in patients with moderate/severe ascites (HR, 0.56; p = 0.02), HVPG ≥ 16 mmHg (HR, 0.42; p < 0.01), or CTP class B/C (HR, 0.52; p < 0.01). Low-dose NSBB was more beneficial with 56% risk reduction (p < 0.01) of mortality compared with 33% risk reduction in the high-dose NSBB (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

NSBB therapy was associated with longer survival in PP and SP groups who had an advanced stage of cirrhosis. Moreover, low-dose NSBB exhibited a better benefit than a standard-titrated high-dose NSBB with better tolerability.

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.

Risk factors associated with bleeding after prophylactic endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVL) is frequently performed in patients with liver cirrhosis. The aim of our study was to identify factors associated with early upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in cirrhosis patients after prophylactic EVL.

METHODS

787 nonemergency EVLs performed in 444 patients in two German University medical centers were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Within 30 days after EVL, 38 UGIBs were observed (4.8 % of all procedures). Bilirubin levels (hazard ratio [HR] 1.5, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.2-2.0 for a 2-fold increase) and presence of varices grade III/IV according to Paquet (HR 2.6, 95 %CI 1.3-5.0 compared with absence or smaller sized varices) were independently associated with UGIB following EVL. International normalized ratio (INR) was associated with bleeding events in the univariate analysis but did not reach statistical significance after adjustment for bilirubin and presence of varices grade III/IV (HR 1.2, 95 %CI 0.9-1.6 for an increase by 0.25). There was no statistically significant association between platelet count or fibrinogen levels and UGIB. Substitution of coagulation products did not affect incidence of bleeding after EVL, which also applied to patients with "coagulopathy" (INR > 1.5 and/or platelet count < 50 × 10⁹/L). No association between proton pump inhibitor therapy and post-EVL UGIB was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

EVL is a safe procedure and immediate bleeding complications are rare. Serum bilirubin levels and size of varices, rather than coagulation indices, are associated with UGIB after EVL. Our data do not support the preventive substitution of blood or coagulation products.

Primary prevention of bleeding from esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis: An update and review of the literature

All patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension should be stratified by risk groups to individualize different therapeutic strategies to increase the effectiveness of treatment. In this regard, the development of primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding and its management according to the severity of portal hypertension may be promising. This paper is to describe the modern principles of primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis. The PubMed and EMbase databases, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were used to search for relevant publications from 1999 to 2019. The results suggested that depending on the severity of portal hypertension, patients with cirrhosis should be divided into those who need preprimary prophylaxis, which aims to prevent the formation of esophageal varices, and those who require measures that aim to prevent esophageal variceal bleeding. In subclinical portal hypertension, therapy should be etiological and pathogenetic. Cirrhosis with clinically significant portal hypertension should receive nonselective β-blockers if they have small esophageal varices and risk factors for variceal bleeding. Nonselective β-blockers are the first-line drugs for the primary prevention of bleeding from medium to large-sized esophageal varices. Endoscopic band ligation is indicated for the patients who are intolerant to nonselective β-blockers or in the case of contraindications to pharmacological therapy. In summary, the stratification of cirrhotic patients by the severity of portal hypertension and an individual approach to the choice of treatment may increase the effectiveness of therapy as well as improve survival rate of these patients.

Pharmacological management of portal hypertension and its complications in children: lessons from adults and opportunities for the future

INTRODUCTION

Portal hypertension (PHT) and its complications in children are thought to be distinct from adult PHT in several areas, including the underlying bio-physiology of a child in which PHT develops, but also because of the pediatric-specific etiologies that drive disease progression. And yet pharmacologic approaches to PHT in children are mainly based on adult data, modified for pediatric practice. This reality has been driven by a lack of data specific to children.

AREAS COVERED

The authors discuss current therapeutic approaches to PHT in children, including management of acute gastrointestinal variceal bleed, pharmacotherapy in prophylaxis, and established and emerging therapies to combat systemic co-morbidities that result from PHT. The few areas where pediatric-specific data exist are highlighted and the many gaps in knowledge that remain unresolved are underscored.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite decades of experience, optimal management of pediatric PHT remains undefined. In large part, this can be directly linked to a lack of basic understanding related to the unique pathophysiology and natural history that defines PHT in children. As a result, meaningful research into the utility and effectiveness of pharmacotherapy in children with PHT remains in its infancy. Large, multi-center, prospective studies will be needed to begin to establish an infrastructure on which a pediatric-specific research agenda can be built.

Managing liver cirrhotic complications: Overview of esophageal and gastric varices

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

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

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

Precision medicine in variceal bleeding: Are we there yet?

Variceal bleeding is one of the most feared complications of portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis because of its deleterious impact on prognosis. Adequate management of patients at risk of developing variceal bleeding includes the prevention of the first episode of variceal bleeding and rebleeding, and is crucial in modifying prognosis. The presence of clinically significant portal hypertension is the main factor determining the risk of development of varices and other liver-related decompensations; therefore, it should be carefully screened for and monitored. Treating patients with clinically significant portal hypertension based on their individual risk of portal hypertension-related bleeding undoubtedly improves prognosis. The evaluation of liver haemodynamics and liver function can stratify patients according to their risk of bleeding and are no question useful tools to guide therapy in an individualised manner. That said, recent data support the idea that tailoring therapy to patient characteristics may effectively impact on prognosis and increase survival in all clinical scenarios. This review will focus on evaluating the available evidence supporting the use of individual risk characteristics for clinical decision-making and their impact on clinical outcome and survival. In primary prophylaxis, identification and treatment of patients with clinically significant portal hypertension improves decompensation-free survival. In the setting of acute variceal bleeding, the risk of failure and rebleeding can be easily predicted, allowing for early escalation of treatment (i.e. pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt) which can improve survival in appropriate candidates. Stratifying the risk of recurrent variceal bleeding based on liver function and haemodynamic response to non-selective beta-blockers allows for tailored treatment, thereby increasing survival and avoiding adverse events.

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

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

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

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