Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) versus laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) plus preoperative endoscopic varices ligation (EVL) in the treatment of recurrent variceal bleeding

Laparoscopic Splenectomy and Esophagogastric Devascularization Versus Endoscopic Varices Ligation Plus Laparoscopic Splenectomy in the Treatment of Portal Hypertension

Background/Aims: To compare laparoscopic splenectomy and esophagogastric devascularization (LSED) with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) plus laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) in treating esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB) caused by portal hypertension (PH). Methods: Between January 2015 and May 2022, 87 patients with PH caused by hepatitis B cirrhosis were included in the retrospective study (34 in LSED versus 53 in EVL + LS). Results: The clinical features of both groups were well-matched (P > .05). The EVL+LS group was associated with shorter operation time, lower operative blood loss, faster gastrointestinal (GI) recovery, lower C-reactive protein levels, and shorter hospital stays after operation (P < .05). Operative morbidity was more significant in the LSED group (19 55.9% versus 18 33.9%) (P < .05). On postoperative days 1 and 3, albumin levels were remarkably lower (P < .05) in the LSED group. The mean follow-up was 24.3 months for LSED and 26.5 for EVL+LS. Hematological parameters, hepatic functional status, hepatic hemodynamics, and endoscopy indicated a substantial improvement in both groups (P < .05), but no significant difference was identified (P > .05). There was no discernible difference in the incidence of GI bleeding between the two groups (P > .05). Conclusion: EVL+LS is a safer, simpler, and more minimally invasive treatment of EGVB secondary to PH.

Balloon-compression endoscopic injection sclerotherapy versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for esophageal variceal rebleeding

BACKGROUND

In cirrhotic patients, recurrent bleeding after the first episode of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) is common and lethal. The present study was aimed to compare balloon-compression endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (bc-EIS) with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for the prophylaxis of variceal rebleeding.

METHODS

Between June 2020 and September 2022, 81 cirrhotic patients with EVB (42 in the bc-EIS group and 39 in the TIPS group) were evaluated retrospectively. The occurrence of rebleeding, hepatic encephalopathy (HE) or other complications, as well as liver functions and survival rate were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

During the 12 months of follow-up, variceal eradication was achieved in 40 (95.24%) patients of the bc-EIS group after a mean of 1.80 ± 0.94 sessions. TIPS was successfully performed in 39 (100%) patients. No significant difference in the variceal rebleeding rate was observed between bc-EIS and TIPS groups (16.67 vs. 17.95%; p = 0.111). While the bc-EIS group showed significantly decreased incidence of HE (2.38 vs. 17.95%; p < 0.001) and lower level of total bilirubin (p < 0.05) in comparison with the TIPS group. The difference in mortality between the two groups failed to reach statistical significance (0.00 vs. 7.69%; p = 0.107).

CONCLUSION

Bc-EIS is not inferior to TIPS in the survival and control of variceal rebleeding, but associated with decreased risk of HE and liver dysfunction.

Effect of splenectomy on the outcomes in patients with cirrhosis receiving transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Patients indicated to transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement may have splenectomy history due to thrombocytopenia. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of prior splenectomy on TIPS procedure and post-TIPS outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal analysis based on a cohort of 284 patients with cirrhosis submitted to TIPS; 74 patients had splenectomy history (splenectomy group) and 210 did not (non-splenectomy group). Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between splenectomy and outcomes after TIPS. The primary outcome was shunt dysfunction. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, clinical recurrence of bleeding or ascites, and overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE).

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 16.2 months, the splenectomy group had significantly lower rates of postoperative shunt patency (85.5% vs 95.6% at 1 year and 75.2% vs 86.5% at 2 years; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-5.12; P = 0.01) and higher risk of OHE (adjusted HR 1.82; 95% CI 1.03-3.54; P = 0.04). But the risk of mortality (adjusted HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.41-1.87; P = 0.73) and recurrent bleeding or ascites (adjusted HR 1.17; 95% CI 0.53-2.35; P = 0.77) showed no statistical difference. Multivariate analysis confirmed splenectomy history and endoscopic therapy as independent predictors of shunt dysfunction. Besides, pre-TIPS splenectomy increased the difficulty of TIPS procedure by complicating portal vein puncture.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with cirrhosis submitted to TIPS, prior splenectomy complicated TIPS procedure and increased the risk of shunt dysfunction and OHE after TIPS, but was not significantly associated with the occurrence of mortality and recurrent bleeding or ascites.

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.

Splanchnic Vein Thrombosis in Liver Cirrhosis After Splenectomy or Splenic Artery Embolization: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Splenectomy and splenic artery embolization are major treatment options for hypersplenism and portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis, but may lead to splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT), which is potentially lethal. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the incidence of SVT in liver cirrhosis after splenectomy or splenic artery embolization and the risk factors for SVT.

METHODS

All relevant studies were searched through the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The incidence of SVT in liver cirrhosis after splenectomy or splenic artery embolization was pooled. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Sixty-six studies with 5632 patients with cirrhosis were included. The pooled incidence of SVT after splenectomy and splenic artery embolization was 24.6% (95% CI 20.2-29.3%) and 11.7% (95% CI 7.1-17.3%), respectively. A meta-analysis of three comparative studies demonstrated that the incidence of SVT after splenectomy was statistically similar to that after splenic artery embolization (OR 3.15, P = 0.290). Platelet count, mean platelet volume, preoperative splenic or portal vein diameter, preoperative or postoperative portal blood velocity, splenic volume and weight, and periesophagogastric devascularization were significant risk factors for SVT after splenectomy. Postoperative use of preventive antithrombotic therapy was a significant protective factor against SVT after splenectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

SVT is common in liver cirrhosis after splenectomy and splenic artery embolization. Coagulation and hemostasis factors, anatomical factors, and surgery-related factors have been widely identified for the assessment of high risk of SVT after splenectomy. Prophylactic strategy after splenectomy, such as antithrombotic therapy, might be considered in such high-risk patients.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study was registered in PROSPERO with a registration number of CRD42019129673.

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

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for secondary prevention according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and splenectomy are more effective than endoscopic therapy for recurrent variceal bleeding in patients with idiopathic noncirrhotic portal hypertension

BACKGROUND

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), splenectomy plus esophagogastric devascularization (SED) and endoscopic therapy + non-selective β-blockers (ET + NSBB) are widely applied in secondary prevention of recurrent gastroesophageal variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis. These different treatments, however, have not been compared in patients with idiopathic non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (INCPH).

AIM

To compare the outcomes of TIPS, SED and ET + NSBB in the control of variceal rebleeding in patients with INCPH.

METHODS

This retrospective study recruited patients from six centers across China. Demographic characteristics, baseline profiles and follow-up clinical outcomes were collected. Post-procedural clinical outcomes, including incidence of rebleeding, hepatic encephalopathy (HE), portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and mortality rates, were compared in the different groups.

RESULTS

In total, 81 patients were recruited, with 28 receiving TIPS, 26 SED, and 27 ET + NSBB. No significant differences in demographic and baseline characteristics were found among these three groups before the procedures. After treatment, blood ammonia was significantly higher in the TIPS group; hemoglobin level and platelet count were significantly higher in the SED group (P < 0.01). Rebleeding rate was significantly higher in the ET + NSBB group (P < 0.01). Mortality was 3.6%, 3.8% and 14.8% in the TIPS, SED and ET + NSBB groups, respectively, with no significant differences (P = 0.082). Logistic regression analysis showed that mortality was significantly correlated with rebleeding, HE, portal thrombosis and superior mesenteric vein thrombosis (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In patients with INCPH, TIPS and SED were more effective in controlling rebleeding than ET + NSBB, but survival rates were not significantly different among the three groups. Mortality was significantly correlated with rebleeding, HE and PVT.

Positive consequences of splenectomy for patients with schistosomiasis-induced variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Patients with hepatic schistosomiasis are at high risk of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding, which is highly torrential and life threatening. This study aimed to assess the effects of splenectomy on patients with schistosomiasis-induced variceal bleeding, especially those influences related to overall survival (OS) rate.

METHODS

From January 2005 to December 2018, 112 patients with schistosomiasis-induced varices were enrolled. In that period, all the patients with hepatic schistosomiasis who received endoscopic treatment for primary and secondary prophylaxis of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding were found eligible. The patients were divided into splenectomized group (n = 44, 39.3%) and control group (n = 68, 60.7%).

RESULTS

Multivariate regression analysis of OS showed that splenectomy, hepatic carcinoma, and times of endoscopic treatment were independent prognostic factors for OS. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the 5-year OS rate was 82.7% in splenectomized group versus 53.2% in control group (P = 0.037). The rate of no recurrence of variceal bleeding during 5-year (56.8% vs. 47.7%, P = 0.449) indicated that there was no significant difference between the two groups. Patients who received splenectomy had increased risk of portal vein thrombosis (52.3% vs. 29.4%, P = 0.012) and decreased proportion of severe ascites (20.5% vs 50.0%, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Splenectomy prior to endoscopic treatment provides a superior long-term survival for patients with schistosomiasis-induced variceal bleeding.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus open splenectomy and esophagogastric devascularization for portal hypertension with recurrent variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and open splenectomy and esophagogastric devascularization (OSED) are widely used to treat patients with portal hypertension and recurrent variceal bleeding (PHRVB). This study aimed to compare the effectiveness between TIPS and OSED for the treatment of PHRVB.

METHODS

The data were retrospectively retrieved from 479 cirrhotic patients (Child-Pugh A or B class) with PHRVB, who had undergone TIPS (TIPS group) or OSED (OSED group) between January 1, 2010 and October 31, 2014.

RESULTS

A total of 196 patients received TIPS, whereas 283 underwent OSED. Within one month after TIPS and OSED, the rebleeding rates were 6.1% and 3.2%, respectively (P=0.122). Significantly lower incidence of pleural effusion, splenic vein thrombosis, and pulmonary infection, as well as higher hepatic encephalopathy rate, shorter postoperative length of hospital stay, and higher hospital costs were observed in the TIPS group than those in the OSED group. During the follow-up periods (29 months), significantly higher incidences of rebleeding (15.3% vs 4.6%, P=0.001) and hepatic encephalopathy (17.3% vs 3.9%, P=0.001) were observed in the TIPS group than in the OSED group. The incidence of in-stent stenosis was 18.9%. The survival rates were 91.3% in the TIPS group and 95.1% in the OSED group. The long-term liver function did not worsen after either TIPS or OSED.

CONCLUSION

For the patients with liver function in the Child-Pugh A or B class, TIPS is not superior over OSED in terms of PHRVB treatment and rebleeding prevention.

U.K. guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients

These updated guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage have been commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee (CSSC) of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the liver section of the BSG. The original guidelines which this document supersedes were written in 2000 and have undergone extensive revision by 13 members of the Guidelines Development Group (GDG). The GDG comprises elected members of the BSG liver section, representation from British Association for the Study of the Liver (BASL) and Liver QuEST, a nursing representative and a patient representative. The quality of evidence and grading of recommendations was appraised using the AGREE II tool.The nature of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients with its complex range of complications makes rigid guidelines inappropriate. These guidelines deal specifically with the management of varices in patients with cirrhosis under the following subheadings: (1) primary prophylaxis; (2) acute variceal haemorrhage; (3) secondary prophylaxis of variceal haemorrhage; and (4) gastric varices. They are not designed to deal with (1) the management of the underlying liver disease; (2) the management of variceal haemorrhage in children; or (3) variceal haemorrhage from other aetiological conditions.