Somatostatin alone or combined with emergency sclerotherapy in the treatment of acute esophageal variceal bleeding: a prospective randomized trial

One in four patients with gastrointestinal bleeding develops shock or hemodynamic instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hemodynamic instability and shock are associated with untoward outcomes in gastrointestinal bleeding. However, there are no studies in the existing literature on the proportion of patients who developed these outcomes after gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIM

To determine the pooled event rates in the available literature and specify them based on the bleeding source.

METHODS

The protocol was registered on PROSPERO in advance (CRD42021283258). A systematic search was performed in three databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) on 14th October 2021. Pooled proportions with 95%CI were calculated with a random-effects model. A subgroup analysis was carried out based on the time of assessment (on admission or during hospital stay). Heterogeneity was assessed by Higgins and Thompson's I2 statistics. The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool was used for the risk of bias assessment. The Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/) tool was applied to obtain the latest highlight articles.

RESULTS

We identified 11589 records, of which 220 studies were eligible for data extraction. The overall proportion of shock and hemodynamic instability in general gastrointestinal bleeding patients was 0.25 (95%CI: 0.17-0.36, I2 = 100%). In non-variceal bleeding, the proportion was 0.22 (95%CI: 0.14-0.31, I2 = 100%), whereas it was 0.25 (95%CI: 0.19-0.32, I2 = 100%) in variceal bleeding. The proportion of patients with colonic diverticular bleeding who developed shock or hemodynamic instability was 0.12 (95%CI: 0.06-0.22, I2 = 90%). The risk of bias was low, and heterogeneity was high in all analyses.

CONCLUSION

One in five, one in four, and one in eight patients develops shock or hemodynamic instability on admission or during hospitalization in the case of non-variceal, variceal, and colonic diverticular bleeding, respectively.

Combined Use of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt and Transarterial Chemoembolization in the Treatment of Esophageal and Gastric Variceal Bleeding: A Retrospective Study of 80 Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Portal Hypertension

Background

The main cause of death in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal hypertension is esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding caused by severe portal hypertension; therefore, the treatment of portal hypertension is particularly important to prolong the survival of patients. The therapeutic efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for HCC with esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding has been rarely reported. The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical efficacy of TIPS combined with TACE in the treatment of HCC with esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding.

Material/Methods

A total of 80 patients with HCC with esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding from July 2015 to November 2019 were retrospectively investigated. Clinical outcomes, biochemical indexes, and complications were compared between TIPS plus TACE and endoscopy plus TACE treatments.

Results

Gastrointestinal rebleeding and adverse reactions (P<0.05) after TIPS combined with TACE were lower than that after endoscopy combined with TACE treatment. Furthermore, TIPS plus TACE had superior clinical outcomes than endoscopy plus TACE, which was associated with promising progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and disease control rate, and improved liver function.

Conclusions

TIPS combined with TACE was better than endoscopy combined with TACE in the treatment of patients with HCC and esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding. TIPS combined with TACE had a better therapeutic effect on improving liver function and prolonging patient survival time.

Short-course vasoconstrictors are adequate for esophageal variceal bleeding after endoscopic variceal ligation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) with vasoconstrictors has been recommended for acute esophageal variceal bleeding. However, the optimal duration of vasoconstrictors after EVL is controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore the efficacy of short-course vasoconstrictors (≤3 days) versus standard combination (3-5 days). A comprehensive literature review was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases with subsequent meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were 5-day rebleeding, mortality, and treatment failure rates. A risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval is used for outcome comparison. Nine randomized studies with 838 patients were included. The initial hemostasis (96.8% vs 97.4%, p = 0.919), 5-day rebleeding (11.2% vs 8.3%, RR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.62-1.76), mortality (0 vs 1.3%, RR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.10-2.39), and treatment failure (7.4% vs 5.9%, RR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.48-2.49) were similar in both groups. Subgroup analysis suggested EVL alone had no significant difference of 5-day re-bleeding (15.9% vs 7.1%, RR = 2.25, 95% CI = 0.87-5.77), mortality (0 vs 0.7%, RR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.08-6.03), treatment failure (9.6% vs 6.7%, RR = 1.43, 95% CI = 0.54-3.75) compared to standard combination. Clinical heterogeneity was found for the rebleeding rate for the subgroup during sensitivity analysis. EVL with short-course vasoconstrictors is highly efficacious for esophageal variceal bleeding. Further studies are required to determine the genuine need of subsequent vasoconstrictor after successful EVL.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiologic Management of Portal Hypertension

Cirrhosis is a heterogeneous disease that cannot be studied as a single entity and is classified in two main prognostic stages: compensated and decompensated cirrhosis. Portal hypertension, characterized by a pathological increase of the portal pressure and by the formation of portal-systemic collaterals that bypass the liver, is the initial and main consequence of cirrhosis and is responsible for the majority of its complications. A myriad of treatment options exists for appropriately managing the most common complications of portal hypertension, including acute variceal bleeding and refractory ascites. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Outcome of Conservative Therapy in Coronavirus disease-2019 Patients Presenting With Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

There is a paucity of data on the management of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in patients with Coronavirus disease -2019 (COVID-19) amid concerns about the risk of transmission during endoscopic procedures. We aimed to study the outcomes of conservative treatment for GI bleeding in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, 24 of 1342 (1.8%) patients with COVID-19, presenting with GI bleeding from 22nd April to 22nd July 2020, were included.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 45.8 ± 12.7 years; 17 (70.8%) were males; upper GI (UGI) bleeding: lower GI (LGI) 23:1. Twenty-two (91.6%) patients had evidence of cirrhosis- 21 presented with UGI bleeding while one had bleeding from hemorrhoids. Two patients without cirrhosis were presumed to have non-variceal bleeding. The medical therapy for UGI bleeding included vasoconstrictors-somatostatin in 17 (73.9%) and terlipressin in 4 (17.4%) patients. All patients with UGI bleeding received proton pump inhibitors and antibiotics. Packed red blood cells (PRBCs), fresh frozen plasma (FFPs) and platelets were transfused in 14 (60.9%), 3 (13.0%) and 3 (13.0%), respectively. The median PRBCs transfused was 1 (0-3) unit(s). The initial control of UGI bleeding was achieved in all 23 patients and none required an emergency endoscopy. At 5-day follow-up, none rebled or died. Two patients later rebled, one had intermittent bleed due to gastric antral vascular ectasia, while another had rebleed 19 days after discharge. Three (12.5%) cirrhosis patients succumbed to acute hypoxemic respiratory failure during hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Conservative management strategies including pharmacotherapy, restrictive transfusion strategy, and close hemodynamic monitoring can successfully manage GI bleeding in COVID-19 patients and reduce need for urgent endoscopy. The decision for proceeding with endoscopy should be taken by a multidisciplinary team after consideration of the patient's condition, response to treatment, resources and the risks involved, on a case to case basis.

Outcome of Conservative Therapy in COVID-19 Patients Presenting with Gastrointestinal Bleeding.. [DOI: 10.1101/2020.08.06.20169813]

Background/Objective

There is a paucity of data on the management of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in patients with COVID-19 amid concerns about the risk of transmission during endoscopic procedures. We aimed to study the outcomes of conservative treatment for GI bleeding in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

In this retrospective analysis, 24 of 1342 (1.8%) patients with COVID-19, presenting with GI bleeding from 22 April to 22 July 2020, were included.

Results

The mean age of patients was 45.8±12.7 years; 17 (70.8%) were males; upper GI (UGI) bleeding: lower GI (LGI) 23:1. Twenty-two (91.6%) patients had evidence of cirrhosis-21 presented with UGI bleeding while one had bleeding from hemorrhoids. Two patients without cirrhosis were presumed to have non-variceal bleeding. The medical therapy for UGI bleeding included vasoconstrictors-somatostatin in 17 (73.9%) and terlipressin in 4 (17.4%) patients. All patients with UGI bleeding received proton pump inhibitors and antibiotics. Packed red blood cells (PRBCs), fresh frozen plasma and platelets were transfused in 14 (60.9%), 3 (13.0%) and 3 (13.0%), respectively. The median PRBCs transfused was 1 (0-3) unit(s). The initial control of UGI bleeding was achieved in all 23 patients and none required an emergency endoscopy. At 5-day follow-up, none rebled or died. Two patients later rebled, one had intermittent bleed due to gastric antral vascular ectasia, while another had rebleed 19 days after discharge. Three (12.5%) cirrhosis patients succumbed to acute hypoxemic respiratory failure during hospital stay.

Conclusion

Conservative management strategies including pharmacotherapy, restrictive transfusion strategy, and close hemodynamic monitoring can successfully manage GI bleeding in COVID-19 patients and reduce need for urgent endoscopy. The decision for proceeding with endoscopy should be taken by a multidisciplinary team after consideration of the patient’s condition, response to treatment, resources and the risks involved, on a case to case basis.

Acute Variceal Bleeding: Does Octreotide Improve Outcomes in Patients with Different Functional Hepatic Reserve?

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines do not differentiate in the utilization of vasoactive drugs in patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding (AVB) depending on liver disease severity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, clinical outcomes in 100 patients receiving octreotide plus endoscopic therapy (ET) and 216 patients with ET alone were compared in terms of failure to control bleeding, in-hospital mortality, and transfusion requirements stratifying the results according to liver disease severity by Child-Pugh (CP) score and MELD.

RESULTS

In patients with CP-A or those with MELD &lt; 10 octreotide was not associated with a better outcome compared to ET alone in terms of hospital mortality (CP-A: 0.0 vs. 0.0%; MELD &lt; 10: 0.0 vs. 2.9%, p = 1.00), failure to control bleeding (CP-A: 8.7 vs. 3.7%, p = 0.58; MELD &lt; 10: 5.3 vs. 4.3%, p = 1.00) and need for transfusion (CP-A: 39.1 vs. 61.1%, p = 0.09; MELD &lt; 10: 63.2 vs. 62.9%, p = 1.00). Those with severe liver dysfunction in the octreotide group showed better outcomes compared to the non-octreotide group in terms of hospital mortality (CP-B/C: 3.9 vs. 13.0%, p = 0.04; MELD ≥ 10: 3.9 vs. 13.3%, p = 0.03) and need for transfusion (CP-B/C: 58.4 vs. 71.6%, p = 0.05; MELD ≥ 10: 50.6 vs. 72.7%, p &lt; 0.01). In multivariate analysis, octreotide was independently associated with in-hospital mortality (p = 0.028) and need for transfusion (p = 0.008) only in patients with severe liver dysfunction (CP-B/C or MELD ≥ 10).

CONCLUSION

Patients with cirrhosis and AVB categorized as CP-A or MELD &lt; 10 had similar clinical outcomes during hospitalization whether or not they received octreotide.

Addition of Somatostatin After Successful Endoscopic Variceal Ligation Does not Prevent Early Rebleeding in Comparison to Placebo: A Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Efficacy of endoscopic sclerotherapy in controlling acute variceal bleeding is significantly improved when vasoactive drug is added. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is superior to sclerotherapy. Whether efficacy of EVL will also improve with addition of somatostatin is not known. We compared EVL plus somatostatin versus EVL plus placebo in control of acute variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Consecutive cirrhotic patients with acute esophageal variceal bleeding were enrolled. After emergency EVL, patients were randomized to receive either somatostatin (250 mcg/hr) or placebo infusion. Primary endpoint was treatment failure within 5 days. Treatment failure was defined as fresh hematemesis ≥2 h after start of therapy, or a 3 gm drop in Hb, or death.

RESULTS

61 patients were enrolled (EVL plus somatostatin group, n = 31 and EVL plus placebo group, n = 30). The baseline characteristics were similar. Within the initial 5-day period, the frequency of treatment failure was similar in both the groups (EVL plus somatostatin group 8/31 [26%] versus EVL plus placebo group 7/30 [23%]; P = 1.000). The mortality was also similar in the two groups (3/31 [10%] vs. 3/30 [10%]; P = 1.000). Baseline HVPG ≥19 mm Hg and active bleeding at index endoscopy were independent predictors of treatment failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of somatostatin infusion to EVL therapy does not offer any advantage in control of acute variceal bleeding or reducing mortality. The reason for this may be its failure to maintain sustained reduction in portal pressure for five days. Active bleeding at index endoscopy and high baseline HVPG should help choose early alternative treatment options. Trial registered with ClincalTrials.gov vide NCT01267669.

Endoscopic hemostasis in acute esophageal variceal bleeding

Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is a milestone event for patients with portal hypertension. Esophageal varices bleed because of an increase in portal pressure that causes the variceal wall to rupture. AVB in a patient with cirrhosis and portal hypertension is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The initial management of these patients includes proper resuscitation, antibiotic prophylaxis, pharmacologic therapy with vasoconstrictors, and endoscopic therapy. Intravascular fluid management, timing of endoscopy, and endoscopic technique are key in managing these patients. This article reviews the current endoscopic hemostatic strategies for patients with AVB.

Lack of difference among terlipressin, somatostatin, and octreotide in the control of acute gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage

Vasoactive drugs are recommended to be started as soon as possible in suspected variceal bleeding, even before diagnostic endoscopy. However, it is still unclear whether the therapeutic efficacies of the various vasoactive drugs used are comparable. The aim of this prospective, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial was to characterize the effects of terlipressin, somatostatin, and octreotide when they are initiated before endoscopic treatment in patients with acute variceal bleeding. Patients with liver cirrhosis and significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding were randomly assigned to receive early administration of terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide, followed by endoscopic treatment. Patients with nonvariceal bleeding were excluded after endoscopy. The primary endpoint was 5-day treatment success, defined as control of bleeding without rescue treatment, rebleeding, or mortality, with a noninferiority margin of 0.1. In total, 780 patients with variceal bleeding were enrolled: 261 in the terlipressin group; 259 in the somatostatin group; and 260 in the octreotide group. At the time of initial endoscopy, active bleeding was noted in 43.7%, 44.4%, and 43.5% of these patients, respectively (P=0.748), and treatment success was achieved by day 5 in 86.2%, 83.4%, and 83.8% (P=0.636), with similar rates of control of bleeding without rescue treatment (89.7%, 87.6%, and 88.1%; P=0.752), rebleeding (3.4%, 4.8%, and 4.4%; P=0.739), or mortality (8.0%, 8.9%, and 8.8%; P=0.929). The absolute values of the lower bound of confidence intervals for terlipressin versus somatostatin, terlilpressin versus octreotide, and octreotide versus somatostatin were 0.095, 0.090, and 0.065, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Hemostatic effects and safety did not differ significantly between terlipressin, somatostatin, and octreotide as adjuvants to endoscopic treatment in patients with acute gastroesophageal variceal bleeding.

Effect of recombinant Factor VIIa on outcome of acute variceal bleeding: an individual patient based meta-analysis of two controlled trials

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Two randomized controlled studies have evaluated the effect of recombinant Factor VIIa (rFVIIa) on variceal bleeding in cirrhosis without showing significant benefit. The aim of the present study was to perform a meta-analysis of the two trials on individual patient data with special focus on high risk patients.

METHODS

The primary outcome measure was the effect of rFVIIa on a composite five day endpoint: failure to control bleeding, 5-day rebleeding or death. Analysis was based on intention to treat. High risk was defined as active bleeding on endoscopy while under vasoactive drug infusion and Child-Pugh score >8.

RESULTS

497 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis; 308 (62%) had active variceal bleeding at endoscopy (oozing or spurting) and 283 of these had a Child-Pugh score >8. Analysis on the composite endpoint in all patients with bleeding from oesophageal varices did not show any beneficial treatment effect. However, failure rate for the primary composite end-point was significantly lower in treated patients with active bleeding at endoscopy (17%) compared to placebo (26%, p=0.049). This difference was highly significant in patients with Child-Pugh score >8 and active bleeding at endoscopy (rFVIIa 16%, placebo 27%; p=0.023). No significant treatment effect was found at 42 days. Five thromboembolic events occurred in rFVIIa treated patients compared to none in placebo treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The current meta-analysis shows a beneficial effect of rFVIIa on the primary composite endpoint of control of acute bleeding, prevention of rebleeding day 1-5 and 5-day mortality in patients with advanced cirrhosis and active bleeding from oesophageal varices at endoscopy. A major drawback of the treatment is a potential increased risk of arterial thrombo-embolic events. This treatment might be considered in patients with lack of control of bleeding after standard treatment.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Patients with Portal Hypertension

Gastrointestinal bleeding related to portal hypertension is a serious complication in patients with liver cirrhosis. Most patients bleed from esophageal or gastric varices, but bleeding from ectopic varices or portal hypertensive gastropathy is also possible. The management of acute bleeding has changed over the last years. Patients are managed with a combination of endoscopic and pharmacologic treatment. The endoscopic treatment of choice for esophageal variceal bleeding is variceal band ligation. Bleeding from gastric varices is treated by injection with cyanoacrylate. Treatment with vasoactive drugs as well as antibiotic treatment is started before or at the time point of endoscopy. The first-line treatment for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding is nonselective beta blockers. Pharmacologic therapy is recommended for most patients; band ligation is an alternative in patients with contraindications for or intolerability of beta blockers. Treatment options for secondary prophylaxis include variceal band ligation, beta blockers, a combination of nitrates and beta blockers, and combination of band ligation and pharmacologic treatment. A clear superiority of one treatment over the other has not been shown. Bleeding from portal hypertensive gastropathy or ectopic varices is less common. Treatment options include beta blocker therapy, injection therapy, and interventional radiology.

[Mexican consensus on portal hypertension]

The aim of the Mexican Consensus on Portal Hypertension was to develop documented guidelines to facilitate clinical practice when dealing with key events of the patient presenting with portal hypertension and variceal bleeding. The panel of experts was made up of Mexican gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and endoscopists, all distinguished professionals. The document analyzes themes of interest in the following modules: preprimary and primary prophylaxis, acute variceal hemorrhage, and secondary prophylaxis. The management of variceal bleeding has improved considerably in recent years. Current information indicates that the general management of the cirrhotic patient presenting with variceal bleeding should be carried out by a multidisciplinary team, with such an approach playing a major role in the final outcome. The combination of drug and endoscopic therapies is recommended for initial management; vasoactive drugs should be started as soon as variceal bleeding is suspected and maintained for 5 days. After the patient is stabilized, urgent diagnostic endoscopy should be carried out by a qualified endoscopist, who then performs the corresponding endoscopic variceal treatment. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be regarded as an integral part of treatment, started upon hospital admittance and continued for 5 days. If there is treatment failure, rescue therapies should be carried out immediately, taking into account that interventional radiology therapies are very effective in controlling refractory variceal bleeding. These guidelines have been developed for the purpose of achieving greater clinical efficacy and are based on the best evidence of portal hypertension that is presently available.

Controlled trial of ligation plus vasoconstrictor versus proton pump inhibitor in the control of acute esophageal variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic therapy combined with vasoconstrictor was generally recommended to treat acute variceal bleeding. However, up to 30% of patients may still encounter treatment failure.

OBJECTIVES

This trial was to evaluate the efficacy of combination with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) infusion in patients with acute variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Cirrhotic patients presenting with acute esophageal variceal bleeding were rescued by emergency EVL. Soon after arresting of bleeding varices, eligible subjects were randomized to two groups. Vasoconstrictor group received either somatostatin or terlipressin infusion. PPI group received either omeprazole or pantoprazole. End points were initial hemostasis, very early rebleeding rate, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were enrolled in vasoconstrictor group and 58 patients in PPI group. Both groups were comparable in baseline data. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 98% in vasoconstrictor group and 100% in PPI group (P = 1.0). Very early rebleeding within 48-120 h occurred in one patient (2%) in vasoconstrictor group and one patient (2%) in the PPI group (P = 1.0). Treatment failure was 4% in vasoconstrictor group and 2% in PPI group (P = 0.95). Adverse events occurred in 33 patients (55%) in vasoconstrictor group and three patients (6%) in PPI group (P < 0.001). Two patients in vasoconstrictor group and one patient in PPI group encountered esophageal ulcer bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

After successful control of acute variceal bleeding by EVL, adjuvant therapy with PPI infusion was similar to combination with vasoconstrictor infusion in terms of initial hemostasis, very early rebleeding rate, and associated with fewer adverse events.

Immediate effects of different schedules of somatostatin on portal pressure in patients with liver cirrhosis

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Somatostatin (SST) is used for the treatment of acute variceal bleeding based on its ability to decrease portal pressure and collateral blood flow. To date, no studies have focused on the immediate-early effects (between 1 and 30 min) of SST. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of different schedules of SST therapy with placebo on portal pressure in patients with portal hypertension treated with portal-azygous disconnection and to test whether an increase in bolus or infusion dose can improve the clinical efficacy of SST therapy.

METHODS

  Patients were treated with four different schedules: (a) standard dose (n = 11): one 250 μg bolus + a continuous infusion of 250 μg/h; (b) medium dose (n = 10): 500 μg bolus + a continuous infusion of 250 μg/h; (c) high dose (n = 10): 250 μg bolus + a continuous infusion of 500 μg/h; (d) control (n = 10): an injection of placebo (saline) followed by a placebo infusion. Following SST or placebo administration, portal pressure, central venous pressure (CVP), systemic blood pressure and heart rate (HR) were measured at 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 30 min.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

  The three schedules of SST induced a marked, rapid and highly significant decrease in portal pressure. The decline in portal pressure was moderate at 1 min (P < 0·040), achieved a peak effect at 5 min (P < 0·009) and remained decreased at 30 min. The effect of SST on portal pressure was significantly greater than placebo from 1 min after administration. There were no significant differences in portal pressure decrease between the three schedules of SST. The three schedules of SST and the placebo schedule did not induce significant changes in HR, systemic blood pressure and CVP.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

  This study shows that SST is effective in decreasing portal pressure within 30 min of administration in patients with liver cirrhosis. The clinical schedule used in this study was reasonable and safe.

Endoscopic management of esophageal varices

The rupture of gastric varices results in variceal hemorrhage, which is one the most lethal complications of cirrhosis. Endoscopic therapies for varices aim to reduce variceal wall tension by obliteration of the varix. The two principal methods available for esophageal varices are endoscopic sclerotherapy (EST) and band ligation (EBL). The advantages of EST are that it is cheap and easy to use, and the injection catheter fits through the working channel of a diagnostic gastroscope. Endoscopic variceal ligation obliterates varices by causing mechanical strangulation with rubber bands. The following review aims to describe the utility of EBL and EST in different situations, such as acute bleeding, primary and secondary prophylaxis

Use of portal pressure studies in the management of variceal haemorrhage

Portal hypertension occurs as a complication of liver cirrhosis and complications such as variceal bleeding lead to significant demands on resources. Endoscopy is the gold standard method for screening cirrhotic patients however universal endoscopic screening may mean a lot of unnecessary procedures as the presence of oesophageal varices is variable hence a large time and cost burden on endoscopy units to carry out both screening and subsequent follow up of variceal bleeds. A less invasive method to identify those at high risk of bleeding would allow earlier prophylactic measures to be applied. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is an acceptable indirect measurement of portal hypertension and predictor of the complications of portal hypertension in adult cirrhotics. Varices develop at a HVPG of 10-12 mmHg with the appearance of other complications with HPVG > 12 mmHg. Variceal bleeding does not occur in pressures under 12 mmHg. HPVG > 20 mmHg measured early after admission is a significant prognostic indicator of failure to control bleeding varices, indeed early transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in such circumstances reduces mortality significantly. HVPG can be used to identify responders to medical therapy. Patients who do not achieve the suggested reduction targets in HVPG have a high risk of rebleeding despite endoscopic ligation and may not derive significant overall mortality benefit from endoscopic intervention alone, ultimately requiring TIPS or liver transplantation. Early HVPG measurements following a variceal bleed can help to identify those at risk of treatment failure who may benefit from early intervention with TIPS. Therefore, we suggest using HVPG measurement as the investigation of choice in those with confirmed cirrhosis in place of endoscopy for intitial variceal screening and, where indicated, a trial of B-blockade, either intravenously during the initial pressure study with assessment of response or oral therapy with repeat HVPG six weeks later. In those with elevated pressures, primary medical prophylaxis could be commenced with subsequent close monitoring of HVPG thus negating the need for endoscopy at this point. All patients presenting with variceal haemorrhage should undergo HVPG measurement and those with a gradient greater than 20 mmHg should be considered for early TIPS. By introducing portal pressure studies into a management algorithm for variceal bleeding, the number of endoscopies required for further intervention and follow up can be reduced leading to significant savings in terms of cost and demand on resources.

Early TIPS with covered stents in high-risk patients with cirrhosis presenting with variceal bleeding: are we ready to dive into the deep end of the pool?

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients with cirrhosis in Child-Pugh class C or those in class B who have persistent bleeding at endoscopy are at high risk for treatment failure and a poor prognosis, even if they have undergone rescue treatment with a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). This study evaluated the earlier use of TIPS in such patients.

METHODS

We randomly assigned, within 24h after admission, a total of 63 patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding who had been treated with vasoactive drugs plus endoscopic therapy to treatment with a polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent within 72 h after randomization (early-TIPS group, 32 patients) or continuation of vasoactive-drug therapy, followed after 3-5 days by treatment with propranolol or nadolol and long-term endoscopic band ligation (EBL), with insertion of a TIPS if needed as rescue therapy (pharmacotherapy-EBL group, 31 patients).

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 16 months, rebleeding or failure to control bleeding occurred in 14 patients in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group as compared with 1 patient in the early-TIPS group (P = 0.001). The 1-year actuarial probability of remaining free of this composite end point was 50% in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group versus 97% in the early-TIPS group (P < 0.001). Sixteen patients died (12 in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group and 4 in the early-TIPS group, P = 0.01). The 1-year actuarial survival was 61% in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group versus 86% in the early-TIPS group (P < 0.001). Seven patients in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group received TIPS as rescue therapy, but four died. The number of days in the intensive care unit and the percentage of time in the hospital during follow-up were significantly higher in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group than in the early-TIPS group. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups with respect to serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In these patients with cirrhosis who were hospitalized for acute variceal bleeding and at high risk for treatment failure, the early use of TIPS was associated with significant reductions in treatment failure and in mortality.

Pathophysiology of portal hypertension and its clinical links

Portal hypertension is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with liver cirrhosis. Intrahepatic vascular resistance due to architectural distortion and intrahepatic vasoconstriction, increased portal blood flow due to splanchnic vasodilatation, and development of collateral circulation have been considered as major factors for the development of portal hypertension. Recently, sinusoidal remodeling and angiogenesis have been focused as potential etiologic factors and various researchers have tried to improve portal hypertension by modulating these new targets. This article reviews potential new treatments in the context of portal hypertension pathophysiology concepts.

Improved survival with the patients with variceal bleed

Variceal hemorrhage is a major cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. Over the past two decades new treatment modalities have been introduced in the management of acute variceal bleeding (AVB) and several recent studies have suggested that the outcome of patients with cirrhosis and AVB has improved. Improved supportive measures, combination therapy which include early use of portal pressure reducing drugs with low rates of adverse effects (somatostatin, octerotide or terlipressin) and endoscopic variceal ligation has become the first line treatment in the management of AVB. Short-term antibiotic prophylaxis, early use of lactulose for prevention of hepatic encephalopathy, application of early transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic shunts (TIPS), fully covered self-expandable metallic stent in patients for AVB may be useful in those cases where balloon tamponade is considered. Early and wide availability of liver transplantation has changed the armamentarium of the clinician for patients with AVB. High hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) >20 mmHg in AVB has become a useful predictor of outcomes and more aggressive therapies with early TIPS based on HVPG measurement may be the treatment of choice to reduce mortality further.

Diagnosis and management of acute variceal bleeding: Asian Pacific Association for Study of the Liver recommendations

BACKGROUND

Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is a medical emergency and associated with a mortality of 20% at 6 weeks. Significant advances have occurred in the recent past and hence there is a need to update the existing consensus guidelines. There is also a need to include the literature from the Eastern and Asian countries where majority of patients with portal hypertension (PHT) live.

METHODS

The expert working party, predominantly from the Asia-Pacific region, reviewed the existing literature and deliberated to develop consensus guidelines. The working party adopted the Oxford system for developing an evidence-based approach. Only those statements that were unanimously approved by the experts were accepted.

RESULTS

AVB is defined as a bleed in a known or suspected case of PHT, with the presence of hematemesis within 24 h of presentation, and/or ongoing melena, with last melanic stool within last 24 h. The time frame for the AVB episode is 48 h. AVB is further classified as active or inactive at the time of endoscopy. Combination therapy with vasoactive drugs (<30 min of hospitalization) and endoscopic variceal ligation (door to scope time <6 h) is accepted as first-line therapy. Rebleeding (48 h of T (0)) is further sub-classified as very early rebleeding (48 to 120 h from T (0)), early rebleeding (6 to 42 days from T (0)) and late rebleeding (after 42 days from T (0)) to maintain uniformity in clinical trials. Emphasis should be to evaluate the role of adjusted blood requirement index (ABRI), assessment of associated comorbid conditions and poor predictors of non-response to combination therapy, and proposed APASL (Asian Pacific Association for Study of the Liver) Severity Score in assessing these patients. Role of hepatic venous pressure gradient in AVB is considered useful. Antibiotic (cephalosporins) prophylaxis is recommended and search for acute ischemic hepatic injury should be done. New guidelines have been developed for management of variceal bleed in patients with non-cirrhotic PHT and variceal bleed in pediatric patients.

CONCLUSION

Management of acute variceal bleeding in Asia-Pacific region needs special attention for uniformity of treatment and future clinical trials.

Acute esophageal variceal bleeding: Current strategies and new perspectives

Management of acute variceal bleeding has greatly improved over recent years. Available data indicates that general management of the bleeding cirrhotic patient by an experienced multidisciplinary team plays a major role in the final outcome of this complication. It is currently recommended to combine pharmacological and endoscopic therapies for the initial treatment of the acute bleeding. Vasoactive drugs (preferable somatostatin or terlipressin) should be started as soon as a variceal bleeding is suspected (ideally during transfer to hospital) and maintained afterwards for 2-5 d. After stabilizing the patient with cautious fluid and blood support, an emergency diagnostic endoscopy should be done and, as soon as a skilled endoscopist is available, an endoscopic variceal treatment (ligation as first choice, sclerotherapy if endoscopic variceal ligation not feasible) should be performed. Antibiotic prophylaxis must be regarded as an integral part of the treatment of acute variceal bleeding and should be started at admission and maintained for at least 7 d. In case of failure to control the acute bleeding, rescue therapies should be immediately started. Shunt therapies (especially transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt) are very effective at controlling treatment failures after an acute variceal bleeding. Therapeutic developments and increasing knowledge in the prognosis of this complication may allow optimization of the management strategy by adapting the different treatments to the expected risk of complications for each patient in the near future. Theoretically, this approach would allow the initiation of early aggressive treatments in high-risk patients and spare low-risk individuals unnecessary procedures. Current research efforts will hopefully clarify this hypothesis and help to further improve the outcomes of the severe complication of cirrhosis.

Early use of TIPS in patients with cirrhosis and variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Patients with cirrhosis in Child-Pugh class C or those in class B who have persistent bleeding at endoscopy are at high risk for treatment failure and a poor prognosis, even if they have undergone rescue treatment with a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). This study evaluated the earlier use of TIPS in such patients.

METHODS

We randomly assigned, within 24 hours after admission, a total of 63 patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding who had been treated with vasoactive drugs plus endoscopic therapy to treatment with a polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent within 72 hours after randomization (early-TIPS group, 32 patients) or continuation of vasoactive-drug therapy, followed after 3 to 5 days by treatment with propranolol or nadolol and long-term endoscopic band ligation (EBL), with insertion of a TIPS if needed as rescue therapy (pharmacotherapy-EBL group, 31 patients).

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 16 months, rebleeding or failure to control bleeding occurred in 14 patients in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group as compared with 1 patient in the early-TIPS group (P=0.001). The 1-year actuarial probability of remaining free of this composite end point was 50% in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group versus 97% in the early-TIPS group (P<0.001). Sixteen patients died (12 in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group and 4 in the early-TIPS group, P=0.01). The 1-year actuarial survival was 61% in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group versus 86% in the early-TIPS group (P<0.001). Seven patients in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group received TIPS as rescue therapy, but four died. The number of days in the intensive care unit and the percentage of time in the hospital during follow-up were significantly higher in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group than in the early-TIPS group. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups with respect to serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In these patients with cirrhosis who were hospitalized for acute variceal bleeding and at high risk for treatment failure, the early use of TIPS was associated with significant reductions in treatment failure and in mortality. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN58150114.)

Management of acute variceal bleeding: emphasis on endoscopic therapy

Acute variceal bleeding is one of the most serious and feared complications of patients with portal hypertension. The most common cause of portal hypertension is advanced liver disease. Patients with esophageal and gastric varices may bleed because of a progressive increase in portal pressure that causes them to grow and finally rupture. This article will review the current management strategies for acute variceal bleeding with emphasis on endoscopic therapy for the acute episode.

Emergency sclerotherapy versus vasoactive drugs for bleeding oesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND

Emergency sclerotherapy is still widely used as a first line therapy for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, particularly when banding ligation is not available or feasible. However, pharmacological treatment may stop bleeding in the majority of these patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of emergency sclerotherapy versus vasoactive drugs for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Search of trials was based on The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded through January 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing sclerotherapy with vasoactive drugs (vasopressin (with or without nitroglycerin), terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide) for acute variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Outcome measures were failure to control bleeding, five-day treatment failure, rebleeding, mortality, number of blood transfusions, and adverse events. Data were analysed by a random-effects model according to the vasoactive treatment. Sensitivity analyses included combined analysis of all the trials irrespective of the vasoactive drug, type of publication, and risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen trials including 1817 patients were identified. Vasoactive drugs were vasopressin (one trial), terlipressin (one trial), somatostatin (five trials), and octreotide (ten trials). No significant differences were found comparing sclerotherapy with each vasoactive drug for any outcome. Combining all the trials irrespective of the vasoactive drug, the risk differences (95% confidence intervals) were failure to control bleeding -0.02 (-0.06 to 0.02), five-day failure rate -0.05 (-0.10 to 0.01), rebleeding 0.01 (-0.03 to 0.05), mortality (17 randomised trials, 1817 patients) -0.02 (-0.06 to 0.02), and transfused blood units (8 randomised trials, 849 patients) (weighted mean difference) -0.24 (-0.54 to 0.07). Adverse events 0.08 (0.03 to 0.14) and serious adverse events 0.05 (0.02 to 0.08) were significantly more frequent with sclerotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing evidence to support the use of emergency sclerotherapy for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis as the first, single treatment when compared with vasoactive drugs. Vasoactive drugs may be safe and effective whenever endoscopic therapy is not promptly available and seems to be associated with less adverse events than emergency sclerotherapy. Other meta-analyses and guidelines advocate that combined vasoactive drugs and endoscopic therapy is superior to either intervention alone.

Delayed endoscopy as a risk factor for in-hospital mortality in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal hemorrhage

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Risk factors for mortality in acute variceal hemorrhage remain incompletely understood. Whether endoscopy timing is associated with risk of mortality has not been investigated. We aimed to investigate risk factors for in-hospital mortality in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal hemorrhage, with emphasis on endoscopy timing.

METHODS

Three hundred and eleven (73% male and 23% female) consecutive cirrhotic patients presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage from July 2004 to July 2007 were investigated. The univariate association of endoscopy timing as the predictor for in-hospital mortality was examined. Independent risk factors for mortality were determined by multivariate logistic regression analysis consisting of clinical, laboratory and endoscopic parameters.

RESULTS

Twenty-five (8.04%) patients died within admission. By plotting the receiver operating curve of endoscopy timing for mortality, we selected 15 h as the optimal cut-off point to define delayed endoscopy. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that independent risk factors predictive for in-hospital mortality included delayed endoscopy performed 15 h after admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-10.39), every point increment of model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (aOR = 1.16; 95% CI, 1.07-1.25), failure of the first endoscopy (aOR = 4.36; 95% CI, 1.54-12.30) and hematemesis as the chief complaint (compared with melena, aOR = 8.66; 95% CI, 1.06-70.94).

CONCLUSION

Delayed endoscopy for more than 15 h, high MELD score, failure of the first endoscopy and hematemesis are independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal hemorrhage.

The management of portal hypertension: rational basis, available treatments and future options

Variceal bleeding is the last step in a chain of events initiated by an increase in portal pressure, followed by the development and progressive dilation of varices until these finally rupture and bleed. This sequence of events might be prevented - and reversed - by achieving a sufficient decrease in portal pressure. A different approach is the use of local endoscopic treatments at the varices. This article reviews the rationale for the management of patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, the current recommendations for the prevention and treatment of variceal bleeding, and outlines the unsolved issues and the perspectives for the future opened by new research developments.

Current endoscopic therapy of variceal bleeding

Variceal ligation has proved more effective and safer than sclerotherapy and is currently the endoscopic treatment of choice for oesophageal varices. In acute bleeding, vasoactive drugs should be started before endoscopy and maintained for 2-5 days. The efficacy of drugs is improved when associated with emergency endoscopic therapy. Antibiotic prophylaxis should also be used. To prevent rebleeding, both endoscopic ligation and the combination of beta-blockers and nitrates may be used. Adding beta-blockers improves the efficacy of ligation. Haemodynamic responders to beta-blockers+/-nitrates (those with a decrease in portal pressure gradient HVPG to <12 mmHg or by >20% of baseline) have a marked reduction in the risk of haemorrhage and will not need further treatment. Beta-blockers significantly reduce the risk of a first haemorrhage in patients with large varices, and they improve survival. As compared to beta-blockers, endoscopic ligation reduces the risk of first bleeding without affecting mortality, and should be used in patients with contraindications or intolerance to beta-blockers.

Hepatic venous pressure gradient and prognosis in patients with acute variceal bleeding treated with pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In acute variceal bleeding (AVB) hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is associated with prognosis. However, this has not been studied in patients receiving the currently recommended therapy. We evaluate here the performance of early HVPG measurement as a predictor of treatment failure in patients with acute variceal bleeding managed with the current standard treatment and whether clinical variables might be of similar predictive accuracy.

METHODS

We included 117 patients with AVB in whom HVPG was measured within 48 h of admission. The main endpoint was 5-day failure, a composite of uncontrolled bleeding, early rebleeding or death within 5 days.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients (15%) had 5-day failure. Multivariate analysis identified three variables independently associated with 5-day failure: HVPG 20, systolic blood pressure at admission <100 mmHg and non-alcoholic cause of cirrhosis. The discriminative capacity of this model was good (c statistic: 0.79). When only clinical variables were included in the analysis, Child-Pugh class, systolic blood pressure at admission and etiology were the independent predictors. This model had also a good discriminative ability (c statistic: 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

HVPG independently predicts short-term prognosis in patients with acute variceal bleeding treated with pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy, but similar predictive accuracy can be achieved using only simple clinical variables that have universal applicability.

Clinical trial: The effect of somatostatin vs. octreotide in preventing post-endoscopic increase in hepatic venous pressure gradient in cirrhotics with bleeding varices

BACKGROUND

Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) increases significantly after endoscopic therapy in patients with bleeding oesophageal varices, which may precipitate further haemorrhage. Whether vasoactive drugs can suppress these changes remains unknown.

AIM

To investigate the efficacy of somatostatin when compared with octreotide in preventing the post-endoscopic increase in HVPG during acute bleeding and whether the changes affect outcome.

METHODS

Thirty-three cirrhotics with bleeding varices were randomized to receive somatostatin (n = 17) or octreotide (n = 16) under double-blind conditions, soon after their admission. HVPG measurements were performed before and immediately after endoscopic treatment.

RESULTS

In the somatostatin group, postendotherapy HVPG values did not change significantly when compared with pre-treatment values (18.9 vs. 17.2, P = 0.092). Conversely, in the octreotide group, HVPG increased significantly after endoscopy (18.2 vs. 20.8, P = 0.003). The probability of 6-week survival without treatment failure was significantly higher in the somatostatin group (P = 0.024). Post-endoscopic HVPG value was independently associated with 6-week failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Somatostatin, but not octreotide, effectively prevents the post-endoscopic increase in HVPG, which may be associated with low probability of treatment failure.

The treatment of acute variceal bleeding

Bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is a frequent and often deadly complication of cirrhosis. Although mortality from an episode of variceal bleeding has decreased in the last 2 decades it is still around 20%. This paper reviews the most recent advancements in the general management and hemostatic treatments of acute variceal bleeding.

Management of acute bleeding from portal hypertension

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a frequent and severe complication of portal hypertension. The most frequent cause of the bleeding is variceal rupture. Despite improvements in prognosis after variceal bleeding over the past two decades, the 6-week mortality rate remains high, ranging from 15 to 30%. Patients die from uncontrolled bleeding, early rebleeding, infection, or renal failure within the first weeks of a bleeding episode. Poor hepatic function, severe portal hypertension with a hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) >20 mmHg, and active bleeding at endoscopy are independently associated with poor prognosis. First-line treatment includes resuscitation, prophylactic antibiotic therapy, the combined use of vasoactive drugs (started as soon as possible), and an endoscopic procedure. Reconstitution of blood volume should be done cautiously to maintain the haematocrit between 25 and 30%. Terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide can be used, and drug therapy is maintained from 48 h to 5 days. Ligation is the endoscopic treatment of choice in bleeding oesophageal varices; in gastric varices, obturation with cyanoacrylate is preferable. Uncontrolled bleeding should be an indication for a salvage transjugular portosystemic shunt (TIPS). In patients with Child-Pugh score A, shunt surgery might be an alternative to TIPS. Trials are currently ongoing into the precise indications of early TIPS in selected patients with an HVPG >20 mmHg, and into the usefulness of administration of recombinant activated factor VII when there is an active bleeding at endoscopy.

A randomized controlled trial comparing ligation and sclerotherapy as emergency endoscopic treatment added to somatostatin in acute variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The currently recommended treatment for acute variceal bleeding is the association of vasoactive drugs and endoscopic therapy. However, which emergency endoscopic treatment combines better with drugs has not been clarified. This study compares the efficacy and safety of variceal ligation and sclerotherapy as emergency endoscopic treatment added to somatostatin.

METHODS

Patients admitted with acute gastrointestinal bleeding and with suspected cirrhosis received somatostatin infusion (for 5 days). Endoscopy was performed within 6h and those with esophageal variceal bleeding were randomized to receive either sclerotherapy (N=89) or ligation (N=90).

RESULTS

Therapeutic failure occurred in 21 patients treated with sclerotherapy (24%) and in nine treated with ligation (10%) (RR=2.4, 95% CI=1.1-4.9). Failure to control bleeding occurred in 15% vs 4%, respectively (P=0.02). Treatment group, shock and HVPG >16 mmHg were independent predictors of failure. Side-effects occurred in 28% of patients receiving sclerotherapy vs 14% with ligation (RR=1.9, 95% CI=1.1-3.5), being serious in 13% vs 4% (P=0.04). Six-week survival probability without therapeutic failure was better with ligation (P=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of variceal ligation instead of sclerotherapy as emergency endoscopic therapy added to somatostatin for the treatment of acute variceal bleeding significantly improves the efficacy and safety.

Bleeding caused by portal hypertension

Variceal bleeding is one of the dreaded complications of portal hypertension. Patients who have suspected or proven cirrhosis should undergo diagnostic upper endoscopy to detect medium and large gastro-esophageal varices. Patients with medium and large gastro-esophageal varices should be treated with non-selective beta-blockers (propranolol or nadolol), and these agents should be titrated to a heart rate of 55 beats per minute or adverse effects. If there are contraindications to or if patients are intolerant to beta-blockers, it is appropriate to consider prophylactic banding therapy for individuals with medium-to-large esophageal varices. When patients who have cirrhosis present with GI bleeding, they should be resuscitated and receive octreotide or other vasoactive agents. Endoscopy should be performed promptly to diagnose the source of bleeding and to provide endoscopic therapy (preferably banding). The currently available treatment for acute variceal bleeding provides hemostasis in most patients. These patients, however, are at significant risk for rebleeding unless secondary prophylaxis is provided. Although various pharmacological, endoscopic, radiological, and surgical options are available, combined pharmacological and endoscopic therapy is the most common form of secondary prophylaxis. TIPS is a radiologically placed portasystemic shunt, and if placed in suitable patients, it can provide effective treatment for patients with variceal bleeding that is refractory to medical and endoscopic therapy.

The management of portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is an almost unavoidable complication of cirrhosis, and it is responsible for the more lethal complications of this syndrome. Appearance of these complications represents the major cause of death and liver transplantation in patients who have cirrhosis. This article highlights treatment modalities in use for managing portal hypertension and those that may be available in the future.

Hemodynamic effects of terlipressin and high somatostatin dose during acute variceal bleeding in nonresponders to the usual somatostatin dose

OBJECTIVES

High dose of somatostatin infusion achieves a greater reduction of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) than the usual dose, and terlipressin decreases HVPG through mechanisms other than somatostatin. Our aim was to assess the hemodynamic effects of terlipressin and high somatostatin dose during acute variceal bleeding in nonresponders to the usual somatostatin dose.

METHODS

Hemodynamic studies were performed in 80 patients with cirrhosis and variceal bleeding during the first 3 days of admission. After baseline measurements, somatostatin was administered (250 microg/h with an initial bolus of 250 microg). Patients were considered responders when the HVPG decreased by >10% from baseline (n = 31). Nonresponders were randomized under double-blind conditions to a control group (n = 7), or to receive terlipressin (2 mg IV bolus, n = 22), or high dose of somatostatin (500 microg/h, n = 20). Final measurements were obtained 30 min later.

RESULTS

Terlipressin caused a decrease in HVPG (from 22.2 +/- 5 to 19.1 +/- 5.2, p < 0.01) and heart rate (p < 0.01), while mean arterial pressure increased (p < 0.01). High somatostatin dose also reduced HVPG (from 21.8 +/- 3.4 to 19.6 +/- 3.1, p < 0.01), although this decrease was more pronounced with terlipressin (15%+/- 9%vs 10%+/- 6% from baseline, p= 0.05). Both terlipressin and high somatostatin dose achieved a significantly higher rate of response than that in the control group. A decrease in HVPG >20% was observed in 36% of cases with terlipressin versus 5% with high somatostatin dose (p= 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In nonresponders to usual somatostatin dose, both terlipressin and high-dose of somatostatin infusion significantly decreased HVPG and increased the rate of hemodynamic responders. Such effects were greater with terlipressin. Both treatments may be an alternative when standard somatostatin fails.

Variceal bleeding: pharmacological therapy

The complications of portal hypertension are totally prevented if hepatic venous pressure gradient is decreased below 12 mm Hg. Besides, if this target is not achieved, a 20% decrease in portal pressure from baseline levels offers an almost total protection from variceal bleeding. This sets the rationale for drug therapy to reduce portal pressure in portal hypertension. Pharmacological therapy to decrease portal pressure includes vasoconstrictors to decrease portal blood inflow, vasodilators to decrease hepatic resistance, and combination therapy. Oral agents, such as beta-adrenergic blockers and organic nitrates, are used for long-term prevention of variceal bleeding, while parenteral agents, such as somatostatin (and analogues) and terlipressin, are used for the treatment of acute variceal bleeding.

Diagnosis and treatment of portal hypertension

Prevention of the first variceal haemorrhage should start when the patients have developed medium-sized to large varices. Non-selective beta-blockers and band ligation are equally effective in preventing the first bleeding episode. Rubber band ligation is the first choice for patients with contraindications or intolerance to beta-blockers. Treatment of acute bleeding should aim at controlling bleeding and preventing early rebleeding and complications, especially infections. Combined endoscopic (band ligation or sclerotherapy) and pharmacological treatment with vasoactive drugs can control bleeding in up to 90% of patients. Antibiotic prophylaxis is an integral part of the treatment of acute variceal haemorrhage, and must be started as soon as possible. Emergency transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPS) is the standard rescue therapy for patients failing combined endoscopic and pharmacological treatment. All patients who survive a variceal bleed should be treated with beta-blockers or band ligation to prevent rebleeding. All patients in whom bleeding cannot be controlled or who continue to rebleed can be treated with salvage TIPS or, in selected cases, with surgical shunts. Liver transplantation should be considered for patients with severe liver insufficiency in which first-line treatments fail.