The management of portal hypertension

TIPS for management of portal-hypertension-related complications in patients with cirrhosis

Portal hypertension is primarily due to liver cirrhosis, and is responsible for complications that include variceal bleeding, ascites and hepatorenal syndrome. The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is a low-resistance channel between the portal vein and the hepatic vein, created by interventional radiology, that aims to reduce portal pressure. TIPS is a potential treatment for severe portal-hypertension-related complications, including esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding. TIPS is currently indicated as salvage therapy in this setting when patients fail to respond to standard endoscopic and medical treatment. More recently, early TIPS has been shown to be effective in decreasing risk of rebleeding after variceal hemorrhage and mortality in Child-Pugh B patients with active hemorrhage at endoscopy, and in Child-Pugh C patients. TIPS is also an efficient treatment for refractory ascites and hepatic hydrothorax. In contrast, the role of TIPS in the hepatorenal syndrome has not been precisely defined. The aim of this review was to specifically describe the current role of TIPS in management of portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis.

Acute variceal bleeding: risk stratification and management (including TIPS)

Acute variceal bleeding should be suspected in all patients with cirrhosis presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Vasoactive drugs and prophylactic antibiotics must be started as soon as possible, even before performing the diagnostic endoscopy. Once the patient is hemodynamically stable, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy should be performed in order to confirm the diagnosis and provide endoscopic therapy (preferably banding ligation). After this initial approach, the most appropriate therapy to prevent both early and late rebleeding must be instituted following a risk stratification strategy. The present chapter will focus on the initial management of patients with acute variceal bleeding, including general management and hemostatic therapies, as well as the available treatments in case of failure to control bleeding or development of rebleeding.

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

BACKGROUND

Emergency treatment of bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis is of singular importance because of the high mortality rate. Emergency portacaval shunt is rarely used today because of the belief, unsubstantiated by long-term randomized trials, that it causes frequent portal-systemic encephalopathy and liver failure. Consequently, portacaval shunt has been relegated solely to salvage therapy when endoscopic and pharmacologic therapies have failed.

QUESTION

Is the regimen of endoscopic sclerotherapy with rescue portacaval shunt for failure to control bleeding varices superior to emergency portacaval shunt? A unique opportunity to answer this question was provided by a randomized controlled trial of endoscopic sclerotherapy versus emergency portacaval shunt conducted from 1988 to 2005.

METHODS

Unselected consecutive cirrhotic patients with acute bleeding esophageal varices were randomized to endoscopic sclerotherapy (n = 106) or emergency portacaval shunt (n = 105). Diagnostic workup was completed and treatment was initiated within 8 h. Failure of endoscopic sclerotherapy was defined by strict criteria and treated by rescue portacaval shunt (n = 50) whenever possible. Ninety-six percent of patients had more than 10 years of follow-up or until death.

RESULTS

Comparison of emergency portacaval shunt and endoscopic sclerotherapy followed by rescue portacaval shunt showed the following differences in measurements of outcomes: (1) survival after 5 years (72% versus 22%), 10 years (46% versus 16%), and 15 years (46% versus 0%); (2) median post-shunt survival (6.18 versus 1.99 years); (3) mean requirements of packed red blood cell units (17.85 versus 27.80); (4) incidence of recurrent portal-systemic encephalopathy (15% versus 43%); (5) 5-year change in Child's class showing improvement (59% versus 19%) or worsening (8% versus 44%); (6) mean quality of life points in which lower is better (13.89 versus 27.89); and (7) mean cost of care per year ($39,200 versus $216,700). These differences were highly significant in favor of emergency portacaval shunt (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency portacaval shunt was strikingly superior to endoscopic sclerotherapy as well as to the combination of endoscopic sclerotherapy and rescue portacaval shunt in regard to all outcome measures, specifically bleeding control, survival, incidence of portal-systemic encephalopathy, improvement in liver function, quality of life, and cost of care. These results strongly support the use of emergency portacaval shunt as the first line of emergency treatment of bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis.

Management of Cirrhosis and Associated Complications

Liver cirrhosis is the encapsulation or replacement of injured tissue by collagen, resulting in end-stage liver disease and portal hypertension. The consequences of cirrhosis are impaired hepatocyte function, increase intrahepatic circulatory resistance, portal hypertension, and the development of hepatocellular carcinoma. Complications include encephalopathy, coagulopathy, varices, ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, epatorenal syndrome, and hepatopulmonary syndrome. Managing patients with acute or chronic liver failure is challenging, and liver failure may have profound effects on other organ systems. Most therapies are directed at managing the complications and bridging patients to liver transplantation. The clinician must be aware of the pathologic presentations and the appropriate management, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies, goals and end points of therapy, and monitoring of therapy. This review focuses on the management of the complications directly associated with liver dysfunction (encephalopathy and coagulopathy) and portal hypertension (varices, ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatorenal syndrome, hepatopulmonary syndrome).

Aetiology of cirrhosis of the liver has an impact on survival predicted by the Model of End-stage Liver Disease score

BACKGROUND

Originally, aetiology of liver disease has been incorporated into the computation of the Model of End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. Clinical observations prompted us to hypothesize that patients with viral and alcoholic cirrhosis may differ in predicted survival rates. Until now, no large representative studies evaluated the impact of aetiology on long-term survival predicted by the Child-Pugh and MELD scores.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four hundred and ninety-three patients who underwent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt implantation in Vienna, Austria, and Palermo, Italy, were included in this retrospective study. The main analyses were a logistic regression model and a Cox proportional hazards regression model calculating the interaction of the aetiology with the scores.

RESULTS

Both groups had similar survival rates (median 1377 and 1721 days for viral and alcoholic cirrhosis, respectively; P = 0.58), but patients with viral cirrhosis had significantly lower MELD scores (P = 0.002). In the Cox analysis, aetiology had a significant impact on the prediction of overall survival by MELD score. For 3-month survival, MELD score was adequately predictive for both groups. For 1-year survival, aetiology had a significant impact on survival, indicating that patients with identical scores but different aetiologies differed in survival rates. When stratifying patients into high- and low-risk patients (MELD < 16 vs. MELD >or= 16), aetiology of cirrhosis had no impact on the predictive value for low-risk patients; high-risk-patients (MELD >or= 16) with viral cirrhosis had significantly lower survival rates than patients with alcoholic cirrhosis and identical scores. With regard to Child-Pugh Score, no significant differences between the two patient groups and in the prediction of 3-month and 1-year survival could be observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that aetiology of cirrhosis has an impact on 1-year survival predicted by the MELD score. This becomes more apparent in patients with advanced stage of liver disease (MELD >or= 16). Since MELD score is used for ranking patients for liver transplantation and waiting times are regularly longer than 3 months, our observations suggest that with increasing time on the waiting list and severity of disease, patients with viral cirrhosis may have a disadvantage in the current allocation policy.

Current management of the complications of portal hypertension: variceal bleeding and ascites

Portal hypertension is one of the main consequences of cirrhosis. It results from a combination of increased intrahepatic vascular resistance and increased blood flow through the portal venous system. The condition leads to the formation of portosystemic collateral veins. Esophagogastric varices have the greatest clinical impact, with a risk of bleeding as high as 30% within 2 years of medium or large varices developing. Ascites, another important complication of advanced cirrhosis and severe portal hypertension, is sometimes refractory to treatment and is complicated by spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and hepatorenal syndrome. We describe the pathophysiology of portal hypertension and the current management of its complications, with emphasis on the prophylaxis and treatment of variceal bleeding and ascites.