Emergency portacaval shunt versus rescue portacaval shunt in a randomized controlled trial of emergency treatment of acutely bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis--part 3

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.

Portosystemic shunts versus endoscopic intervention with or without medical treatment for prevention of rebleeding in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

People with liver cirrhosis who have had one episode of variceal bleeding are at risk for repeated episodes of bleeding. Endoscopic intervention and portosystemic shunts are used to prevent further bleeding, but there is no consensus as to which approach is preferable.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of shunts (surgical shunts (total shunt (TS), distal splenorenal shunt (DSRS), or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)) versus endoscopic intervention (endoscopic sclerotherapy or banding, or both) with or without medical treatment (non-selective beta blockers or nitrates, or both) for prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with liver cirrhosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CHBG Controlled Trials Register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS (Bireme); Science Citation Index - Expanded (Web of Science); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science); as well as conference proceedings and the references of trials identified until 22 June 2020. We contacted study investigators and industry researchers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing shunts versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis who had recovered from a variceal haemorrhage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. When possible, we collected data to allow intention-to-treat analysis. For each outcome, we estimated a meta-analysed estimate of treatment effect across trials (risk ratio for binary outcomes). We used random-effects model meta-analysis as our main analysis and as a means of presenting results. We reported differences in means for continuous outcomes without a meta-analytic estimate due to high variability in their assessment among all trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 27 randomised trials with 1828 participants. Three trials assessed TSs, five assessed DSRSs, and 19 trials assessed TIPSs. The endoscopic intervention was sclerotherapy in 16 trials, band ligation in eight trials, and a combination of band ligation and either sclerotherapy or glue injection in three trials. In eight trials, endoscopy was combined with beta blockers (in one trial plus isosorbide mononitrate). We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all the outcome review results as very low (i.e. the true effects of the results are likely to be substantially different from the results of estimated effects). The very low evidence grading is due to the overall high risk of bias for all trials, and to imprecision and publication bias for some outcomes. Therefore, we are very uncertain whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment have effects on all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.13; 1828 participants; 27 trials), on rebleeding (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50; 1769 participants; 26 trials), on mortality due to rebleeding (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; 1779 participants; 26 trials), and on occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy, both acute (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.92; 1649 participants; 24 trials) and chronic (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.55; 956 participants; 13 trials). No data were available regarding health-related quality of life. Analysing each modality of portosystemic shunts individually (i.e. TS, DSRS, and TIPS) versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment, we are very uncertain if each type of shunt has effect on all-cause mortality: TS, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.13; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.33; 352 participants; 4 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.31; 1312 participants; 19 trial; on rebleeding: TS, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.56; 127 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.65; 330 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.55; 1312 participants; 19 trials; on mortality due to rebleeding: TS, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.74; 352 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.04; 1263 participants; 18 trials; on acute hepatic encephalopathy: TS, RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.92; 115 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.08; 287 participants; 4 trials, TIPS, RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.99; 1247 participants; 18 trials; and chronic hepatic encephalopathy: TS, Fisher's exact test P = 0.11; 69 participants; 1 trial; DSRS, RR 4.87, 95% CI 1.46 to 16.23; 170 participants; 2 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.93 to 3.80; 717 participants; 10 trials. The proportion of participants with shunt occlusion or dysfunction was overall 37% (95% CI 33% to 40%). It was 3% (95% CI 0.8% to 10%) following TS, 7% (95% CI 3% to 13%) following DSRS, and 47.1% (95% CI 43% to 51%) following TIPS. Shunt dysfunction in trials utilising polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents was 17% (95% CI 11% to 24%). Length of inpatient hospital stay and cost were not comparable across trials. Funding was unclear in 16 trials; 11 trials were funded by government, local hospitals, or universities.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis and previous hypertensive portal bleeding have little or no effect on all-cause mortality is very uncertain. Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts may reduce bleeding and mortality due to bleeding while increasing hepatic encephalopathy is also very uncertain. We need properly conducted trials to assess effects of these interventions not only on assessed outcomes, but also on quality of life, costs, and length of hospital stay.

Management of gastroesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients: current status and future directions

Bleeding from gastroesophageal varices (GEV) is a serious event in cirrhotic patients and can cause death. According to the explosion theory, progressive portal hypertension is the primary mechanism underlying variceal bleeding. There are two approaches for treating GEV: primary prophylaxis to manage bleeding or emergency treatment for bleeding followed by secondary prophylaxis. Treatment methods can be classified into two categories: 1) Those used to decrease portal pressure, such as medication (i.e., nonselective β-blockers), radiological intervention [transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)] or a surgical approach (i.e., portacaval shunt), and 2) Those used to obstruct GEV, such as endoscopy [endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS), and tissue adhesive injection] or radiological intervention [balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO)]. Clinicians should choose a treatment method based on an understanding of its efficacy and limitations. Furthermore, elastography techniques and serum biomarkers are noninvasive methods for estimating portal pressure and may be helpful in managing GEV. The impact of these advances in cirrhosis therapy should be evaluated for their effectiveness in treating GEV.

Predictors of negative intraoperative findings at emergent laparotomy in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Emergent surgery in the setting of decompensated cirrhosis is highly morbid. We sought to determine the clinical factors associated with negative intraoperative findings at emergent laparotomy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of consecutive inpatients with a diagnosis of cirrhosis (ICD-9 571) admitted to the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (Boston, MA) who underwent emergent, nonhepatic, abdominal surgery between May 6, 2005 and September 3, 2012.

RESULTS

Eighty-six patients with cirrhosis were included with a mean model for end-stage liver disease score of 21.3 ± 7.95 and a 90-day mortality rate of 39.5%. Twelve (16.2%) patients had negative laparotomies. Negative intraoperative findings were independently associated with (1) paracentesis prior to a preoperative diagnosis of perforated viscus (P = 0.006), (2) development of an indication for emergent surgery after 24 h into hospital admission for another reason (P = 0.020), and (3) a preoperative diagnosis of bowel ischemia (P = 0.005), with odds ratios of 10.1 (CI 1.92-66.83), 5.80 (CI 1.32-33.39), and 11.1 (CI 2.08-77.4), respectively. Free air on computed tomography (CT) imaging was found in 64.3% (9/14) of patients who had a paracentesis within the preceding 48 h compared to 10.1% (7/72) among patients who did not undergo a paracentesis (P < 0.001). Only 45% of patients with free air following a paracentesis had positive findings at laparotomy compared to 100% in those without a preceding paracentesis (P = 0.038). Negative laparotomy was independently predictive of in-hospital mortality (OR 4.7; P = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

The possibility of a negative laparotomy is suggested by preoperative clinical factors. In particular, free air following a paracentesis does not necessarily indicate that operative intervention is required. Consideration of close observation before laparotomy in these patients is reasonable.

Randomized controlled trial of emergency transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus emergency portacaval shunt treatment of acute bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Emergency treatment of bleeding esophageal varices (BEV) in cirrhosis is of paramount importance because of the resultant high mortality rate. Emergency therapy today consists mainly of endoscopic and pharmacologic measures, with use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) when bleeding is not controlled. Surgical portosystemic shunt has been relegated to last resort salvage when all other measures fail. Regrettably, no randomized controlled trials have been reported in which TIPS and surgical portosystemic shunt were compared in unselected patients with acute BEV, with long-term follow-up. This is a report of a long-term prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared TIPS with emergency portacaval shunt (EPCS) in patients with cirrhosis and acute BEV.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 154 unselected, consecutive cirrhotic patients ("all comers") with acute BEV were randomized to TIPS (n = 78) or EPCS (n = 76), and the two treatments were compared with regard to effect on survival, control of bleeding, portal-systemic encephalopathy (PSE), and disability. Diagnostic workup was completed within 6 h and TIPS or EPCS was initiated within 24 h. Regular follow-up was accomplished in 100 % of patients and lasted for 5 to 10 years in 85 % and 3 to 4.5 years in the remainder. This report focuses on control of bleeding and survival.

RESULTS

The clinical characteristics of the two groups were similar, and the distribution of Child classes A, B, and C was almost identical. TIPS was successful in controlling BEV for 30 days in 80 % of patients but achieved long-term control of BEV in only 22 %. In contrast, EPCS controlled BEV immediately in all patients and permanently in 97 % (p < 0.001). TIPS patients required almost twice as many units of blood transfusion as EPCS patients. Survival rate at all time intervals and in all Child classes was significantly greater following EPCS than after TIPS (p < 0.001). Median survival was over 10 years following EPCS, compared to 1.99 years following TIPS. Stenosis or occlusion of TIPS was demonstrated in 84 % of patients who survived 21 days, 63 % of whom underwent TIPS revision, which failed in 80 %. In contrast, EPCS remained permanently patent in 97 % of patients. Recurrent PSE was threefold more frequent following TIPS than after EPCS (61 versus 21 %).

CONCLUSIONS

EPCS was uniformly effective in the treatment of BEV, while TIPS was disappointing. EPCS accomplished long-term survival while TIPS resulted in a survival rate that was less than one fifth that of EPCS. The results of this RCT in unselected, consecutive patients justify the use of EPCS as a first-line emergency treatment of BEV in cirrhosis (clinicaltrials.gov #NCT00734227).

Disability index in a randomized controlled trial of emergency sclerotherapy versus portacaval shunt for bleeding varices in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Disability has not been studied after emergency treatment of bleeding esophageal varices (BEV). We created a disability index (DI) in a randomized controlled trial comparing emergency endoscopic therapy (EST) versus emergency portacaval shunt (EPCS).

METHODS

There were 211 unselected, consecutive patients with cirrhosis and acute BEV who were randomized to EST (n = 106) or EPCS (n = 105). Diagnostic work-up and treatment were performed within 8 hours. Ninety-six percent underwent more than 10 years follow-up evaluation. Disability was measured by assessing 9 factors to create a DI.

RESULTS

Ten-year survival was 8% after EST versus 51% after EPCS (P < .001). EPCS had a significantly better DI. The EST and EPCS values were as follows: liver function improvement: not applicable and ++; worsening liver function, ++ and not applicable; portal-systemic encephalopathy (PSE) incidence, 36 and 15; PSE episodes, 179 and 94; packed red blood cell units, 1,005 and 320; hospital readmissions, 387 and 292; and number of readmission days, 9.6 and 4.7. All of the P values were less than .001.

CONCLUSIONS

EPCS resulted in a markedly better DI than EST, a significantly higher survival rate, better control of bleeding, and a lower incidence of PSE. EPCS is an effective first-line emergency treatment of BEV.

[Portosystemic shunt surgery between TIPS and liver transplantation]

Portosystemic shunt surgery in addition to transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) insertion must still be regarded as a current treatment option for portomesenteric decompression in patients with pharmacological and endoscopic treatment failure, where liver transplantation is not imminent. This applies to secondary prophylaxis of rebleeding from varices in patients with well preserved liver function, e.g. liver cirrhosis CHILD A or extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis. Even if emergency endoscopy represents the treatment of choice in the acute bleeding situation, latest data from San Diego on emergency portacaval shunt surgery are encouraging. Likewise, portacaval shunt procedures can be an attractive alternative to TIPS or liver transplantation for acute Budd-Chiari syndrome or veno-occlusive disease.This article is an update on the systematics and methodology of portacaval shunt surgery, emphasizing the significance of this treatment option based on latest studies.

Child-Turcotte score versus MELD for prognosis in a randomized controlled trial of emergency treatment of bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Bleeding esophageal varices is responsible for much of the high mortality rate in cirrhosis. An important objective of management of bleeding varices is to develop reliable tools for predicting survival, controlling bleeding and encephalopathy, and improve quality of life. This study compared two widely used prognostic tools, the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and the Child-Turcotte (C-T) score, in a randomized controlled trial of emergency treatment of bleeding varices.

METHODS

We randomized 211 unselected consecutive patients with cirrhosis and bleeding varices to endoscopic sclerotherapy (n = 106) or emergency portacaval shunt (n = 105). Diagnosis and treatment were accomplished within 20 hours. Follow-up was 100% for 10 y. We compared the prognostic powers of MELD and C-T upon entry, and then monthly for the first year and every 3 months thereafter. Statistical analysis included computation of receiver operating curves, the area under the curve, and the proportion of variability.

RESULTS

In baseline determinations of MELD versus C-T, there were no significant differences in predicting survival, recurrent encephalopathy, and rebleeding. The Child-Turcotte score was a stronger predictor than MELD of hospital readmissions and readmission days. In serial determinations over years, the prognostic power of both MELD and C-T was substantial, but C-T was significantly more effective in predicting survival and time to recurrent encephalopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first long-term comparison of MELD versus C-T in cirrhosis with bleeding varices, C-T was consistently as effective as MELD in predicting survival, encephalopathy, rebleeding, hospital readmissions, and readmission days. In some measures, C-T was a more effective prognostic tool than MELD.

Direct costs of care in a randomized controlled trial of endoscopic sclerotherapy versus emergency portacaval shunt for bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis--Part 4

BACKGROUND

Emergency treatment of bleeding esophageal varices (BEV) in cirrhotic patients is of prime importance because of the high mortality rate surrounding the episode of acute bleeding. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of randomized controlled trials of emergency surgical therapy and no reports of the costs of any of the widely used forms of emergency treatment. The important issue of direct costs of care was examined in a randomized controlled trial that compared endoscopic sclerotherapy (EST) to emergency portacaval shunt (EPCS).

METHODS

Two hundred eleven unselected consecutive patients with ultimately biopsy-proven cirrhosis and endoscopically proven acute BEV were randomized to EST (n = 106) or EPCS (n = 105). Diagnostic workup was completed, and EST or EPCS was initiated within 8 h. Criteria for failure of EST or EPCS were clearly defined, and crossover rescue treatment was applied, when primary therapy failed. Ninety-six percent of patients underwent more than 10 years follow-up, or until death. Complete charges for all aspects of care were obtained continuously for more than 10 years.

RESULTS

Direct charges for all aspects of care were significantly lower in patients treated by EPCS than in patients treated by emergency EST followed by long-term repetitive sclerotherapy. Charges per patient, per year of treatment, and per year in each child's risk class were significantly lower in patients randomized to EPCS. Charges in patients who failed endoscopic sclerotherapy and underwent a rescue portacaval shunt were significantly higher than the charges in both the unshunted sclerotherapy patients and the patients randomized to EPCS. This result was particularly noteworthy given the widespread practice of using surgical portacaval shunt as rescue treatment only when all other forms of therapy have failed.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized controlled trial of emergency treatment of acute BEV, EPCS was significantly superior to EST with regard to direct costs of care as reflected in charges for care as well as in survival rate, control of bleeding, and incidence of portal-systemic encephalopathy. These results provide support for the use of EPCS as a first line of emergency treatment of BEV in cirrhosis.