Microwave coagulation versus sclerotherapy after band ligation to prevent recurrence of high risk of bleeding esophageal varices in Child-Pugh's A and B patients

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.

Efficacy of Therapeutic Endoscopy for Gastrointestinal Lesion (GI): A network meta-analysis

Objective:

Endoscopic therapy can reduce the risks of rebleeding, continued bleeding, need for surgery, and mortality. The objective of this systematic review was to compare the different modalities of endoscopic therapy for GI bleeding.

Methods:

Studies were identified by searching electronic databases MEDLINE. We selected all available clinical studies published after 2000 that assessed efficacy and/or safety of different endoscopic hemostatic techniques in treating GI bleeding. The outcomes evaluated included initial hemostasis, rebleeding rate, and 30-day all-cause mortality. Network meta-analyses were performed to summarize the treatment effects.

Results:

Total 20 studies involving 1845 patients were evaluated. Ten different treatment categories including mechanic, ablative, injection, and combined therapy were compared in our analysis in terms of their efficacy in stopping bleeding and complications. Band ligation [rate: 0.757; 95% Credible Interval (0.565, 0.887)] and injection therapy [rate: 0.891; 95% CI (0.791, 0.944)] had inferior efficacy in attaining initial hemostasis compared to others. Combined therapy of band ligation and HPC and hemoclip may represent the best options for preventing rebleeding and mortality respectively. No significant difference was found among other treatments in terms of complications.

Conclusions:

We recommend the application of hemoclips in treating GI bleeding due to its high hemostasis efficacy and low risk of 30-day mortality.

Role of band ligation for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

AIM

To summarize and critically examine the role of band ligation in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

A literature review was performed using the MEDLINE and PubMed databases. The search terms consisted of the words “endoscopic band ligation” OR “variceal band ligation” OR “ligation” AND “secondary prophylaxis” OR “secondary prevention” AND “variceal bleeding” OR “variceal hemorrhage” AND “liver cirrhosis”. The data collected from relevant meta-analyses and from the most recent randomized studies that were not included in these meta-analyses were used to evaluate the role of endoscopic band ligation in an effort to demonstrate the most recent advances in the treatment of esophageal varices.

RESULTS

This study included 11 meta-analyses published from 2002 to 2017 and 10 randomized trials published from 2010 to 2017 that evaluated the efficacy of band ligation in the secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. Overall, the results proved that band ligation was superior to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Moreover, the use of β-blockers in combination with band ligation increased the treatment effectiveness, supporting the current recommendations for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. The use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt was superior to combination therapy regarding rebleeding prophylaxis, with no difference in the survival rates; however, the results concerning the hepatic encephalopathy incidence were conflicting. Recent advances in the management of secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding have targeted a decrease in portal pressure based on the pathophysiological mechanisms of portal hypertension.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that future research should be conducted to enhance current interventions and/or to develop innovative treatment options with improved clinical endpoints.

New Developments in Managing Variceal Bleeding

Liver cirrhosis is the end stage of chronic liver disease, independent of etiology, and is characterized by accumulation of fibrotic tissue and conversion of the normal liver parenchyma into abnormal regenerative nodules. Complications include portal hypertension (PH) with gastroesophageal varices, ascites, hepatorenal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, bacteremia, and hypersplenism. The most life-threatening complication of liver cirrhosis is acute variceal bleeding (AVB) which is associated with increased mortality that, despite recent progress in management, is still around 20% at 6 weeks. Combined treatment with vasoactive drugs, prophylactic antibiotics, and endoscopic techniques is the recommended standard of care for patients with acute variceal bleeding. There are many promising new modalities including the combination of coil and glue injection for management of bleeding or non-bleeding gastric varices and hemostatic powder application, that requires minimal expertise, when performed early after admission of a cirrhotic patient with AVB and overt hematemesis acting as a bridge therapy till definitive endoscopic therapy can be performed in hemodynamically stable conditions and without acute bleeding.

Endoscopic variceal ligation combined with argon plasma coagulation versus ligation alone for the secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is often recommended as an effective method for the treatment of esophageal varices, despite the important tendency of variceal recurrence. Recent studies indicate that combining EVL with argon plasma coagulation (APC) may be a more effective therapy than ligation alone. To investigate these findings, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of EVL combined with APC versus ligation alone for the secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal hemorrhage. All studies were searched through PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Science Direct. The outcome measures were relative risk (RR) or risk difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data and standardized mean difference for continuous data. Heterogeneity was calculated using the χ and the I-tests. Two investigators independently identified four randomized-controlled trials included in the research. The variceal recurrence rate was significantly lower in the combined therapy group (RR=0.19, 95% CI: 0.09-0.41, P=0.000). The bleeding recurrence and mortalities in the two groups showed no significant differences (RR=0.29, 95% CI: 0.08-1.04, P=0.058; risk difference=-0.02, 95% CI: -0.08-0.04, P=0.576, respectively). Although the pyrexia incidence rate was significantly higher in the combined group (RR=3.42, 95% CI: 1.56-7.48, P=0.002), there was intertrial heterogeneity (I=52.5%, P=0.097). EVL combined with APC is superior to ligation alone for endoscopic variceal recurrence without severe adverse events in secondary prophylaxis against esophageal variceal bleeding. More high-quality studies are needed to strengthen this conclusion.

Endoscopic variceal ligation compared with endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for treatment of esophageal variceal hemorrhage: A meta-analysis

AIM: To compare the effect of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) with that of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) in the treatment of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding.

METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of multiple online electronic databases. Meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of combined studies for the treatment of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding between EVL and EIS.

RESULTS: Fourteen studies comprising 1236 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The rebleeding rate in actively bleeding varices patients in the EVL group was significantly lower than that in the EIS group (RR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.57-0.81). The variceal eradication rate in actively bleeding varices patients in the EVL group was significantly higher than that in the EIS group (RR = 1.06, 95%CI: 1.01-1.12). There was no significant difference about mortality rate between the EVL group and EIS group (RR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.77-1.17). The rate of complications in actively bleeding varices patients in the EVL group was significantly lower than that in the EIS group (RR = 0.28, 95%CI: 0.13-0.58).

CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis has found that EVL is better than EIS in terms of the lower rates of rebleeding, complications, and the higher rate of variceal eradication. Therefore, EVL is the first choice for esophageal variceal bleeding.

Progress in prevention and treatment of rebleeding after endoscopic band ligation for esophageal variceal bleeding

Hemorrhage from esophageal varices is a serious and common complication of decompensated cirrhosis and carries a significant rate of morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is an effective treatment for esophageal varices; however, there is a very high rate of rebleeding. Prevention and treatment of rebleeding after EVL are important for improving survival in patients with liver cirrhosis. Currently, many measures, including endoscopy, surgery, medication, and a combination of them, have been developed to prevent the occurrence of rebleeding after EVL. Many clinical trials have been done to evaluate the effectiveness of various treatments, alone or in combination, for rebleeding.

Endoscopic management of portal hypertension

Cirrhosis is the leading cause of portal hypertension worldwide, with the development of bleeding gastroesophageal varices being one of the most life-threatening consequences. Endoscopy plays an indispensible role in the diagnosis, staging, and prophylactic or active management of varices. With the expected future refinements in endoscopic technology, capsule endoscopy may one day replace traditional gastroscopy as a diagnostic modality, whereas endoscopic ultrasound may more precisely guide interventional therapy for gastric varices.

Does sclerotherapy of remnant little oesophageal varices after endoscopic ligation have impact on the reduction of recurrent varices? Prospective study

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is superior to endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) of oesophageal varices, however, EBL is associated with a higher rate of variceal recurrences.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether the reduction of recurrent varices can be achieved by additional sclerotherapy of remnant little varices after ligation.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients with liver cirrhosis who had previously bled from oesophageal varices were examined. Endoscopic therapy was performed in order to prevent recurrent variceal bleeding. I group: in 23 patients ligation of oesophageal varices with multi band ligation device was applied (EBL group). II group: in 25 patients sclerotherapy using polydocanol or absolute alcohol was applied after reducing the size of varices using ligation (EBL and EIS group).

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the examined groups of patients in relation to the number of sessions for variceal eradication, recurrence of variceal bleeding, deterioration of portal gastropathy and mortality in the observed period from 18.8 +/- 18.6 months (EBL group) and 22.2 +/- 26.2 months (EBL and EIS group). Variceal recurrence was verified in 21.7% of patients of the EBL group and 16% of the EBL and EIS group, but the difference was not statistically important. Several complications, such as dysphagia and chest pain, were statistically more frequent in the EBL and EIS group of patients.

CONCLUSION

The combined method of ligation and extra sclerosing of remnant small oesophageal varices after ligation does not have advantage in relation to the ligation alone.

The role of endoscopy in secondary prophylaxis of esophageal varices

The rate of rebleeding from esophageal varices remains appreciably high after cessation of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Many measures have been developed to prevent the occurrence of rebleeding. Endoscopic therapy plays a central role in the prevention of variceal bleeding. In the 1980s sclerotherapy played a pivotal role in the prevention of variceal rebleeding, but now yields to endoscopic variceal ligation. Compared with sclerotherapy, a lower incidence of complications and rebleeding is associated with banding ligation. On the other hand, beta-blockers are also noted to be able to reduce portal pressure, leading to the reduction of variceal rebleeding. The reduction of variceal rebleeding with beta-blockers plus nitrates is as effective as banding ligation. The combination of beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation has proven to be more efficacious than banding ligation alone in the reduction of variceal rebleeding and is the treatment of choice for patients with failure in either medical or endoscopic therapy. Patients with repeated rebleeding despite endoscopic therapies may require transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt or shunt operation as a rescue therapy.