Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

Evaluation and management of emergencies in the patient with cirrhosis

The approach to and management of critically ill patients is one of the most versatile themes in emergency medicine. Patients with cirrhosis of the liver have characteristics that are inherent to their disease that can condition modification in acute emergency treatment. Pathophysiologic changes that occur in cirrhosis merit the implementation of an analysis as to whether the overall management of a critically ill patient can generally be applied to patients with cirrhosis of the liver or if they should be treated in a special manner. Through a review of the medical literature, the available information was examined, and the evidence found on the special management required by those patients was narratively synthesized, selecting the most representative decompensations within chronic disease that require emergency treatment.

Risk factors associated with bleeding after prophylactic endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVL) is frequently performed in patients with liver cirrhosis. The aim of our study was to identify factors associated with early upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in cirrhosis patients after prophylactic EVL.

METHODS

787 nonemergency EVLs performed in 444 patients in two German University medical centers were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Within 30 days after EVL, 38 UGIBs were observed (4.8 % of all procedures). Bilirubin levels (hazard ratio [HR] 1.5, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.2-2.0 for a 2-fold increase) and presence of varices grade III/IV according to Paquet (HR 2.6, 95 %CI 1.3-5.0 compared with absence or smaller sized varices) were independently associated with UGIB following EVL. International normalized ratio (INR) was associated with bleeding events in the univariate analysis but did not reach statistical significance after adjustment for bilirubin and presence of varices grade III/IV (HR 1.2, 95 %CI 0.9-1.6 for an increase by 0.25). There was no statistically significant association between platelet count or fibrinogen levels and UGIB. Substitution of coagulation products did not affect incidence of bleeding after EVL, which also applied to patients with "coagulopathy" (INR > 1.5 and/or platelet count < 50 × 10⁹/L). No association between proton pump inhibitor therapy and post-EVL UGIB was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

EVL is a safe procedure and immediate bleeding complications are rare. Serum bilirubin levels and size of varices, rather than coagulation indices, are associated with UGIB after EVL. Our data do not support the preventive substitution of blood or coagulation products.

Liver volume index predicts the risk of esophageal variceal hemorrhage in cirrhotic patients on propranolol prophylaxis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Non-selective β-blockers (NSBBs) are used for primary prevention of esophageal variceal hemorrhage (VH) in patients with portal hypertension, but a significant number of patients develop VH while on NSBB therapy. In this study, we sought to determine whether liver volume can predict the risk of primary prophylaxis failure in cirrhotic patients on NSBB therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 309 patients on prophylactic propranolol was analyzed. Liver volume was measured in portal venous phase images of multidetector computed tomography. Predictors of VH were assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model with competing-risks analysis. A nomogram was developed for estimation of the risk of primary prophylaxis failure.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 36 months, 37 patients on propranolol developed VH. Liver volume index, the ratio of measured-to-expected liver volume, was an independent predictor of VH (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37 to 5.33; p = 0.004) as were the presence of large varices and the absence of ascites. A nomogram-based volume score of > 0.6 was predictive of prophylaxis failure (HR, 7.54; 95% CI, 2.88 to 19.73; p < 0.001). Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that a nomogram-based risk score had significantly better discriminatory power than the North Italian Endoscopy Club index in predicting prophylaxis failure at 6 and 8 years.

CONCLUSION

Liver volume index is an independent predictor of first VH and a nomogram-based volume score stratifies the VH risk in cirrhotic patients on propranolol prophylaxis.

Comparison of Therapies for Primary Prevention of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of different approaches in primary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding and overall survival in patients with cirrhosis with large varices. Thirty-two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 3,362 adults with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices and no prior history of bleeding, with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up, were included. Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB), isosorbide-mononitrate (ISMN), carvedilol, and variceal band ligation (VBL), alone or in combination, were compared with each other or placebo. Primary outcomes were reduction of all-cause mortality and prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding. Random-effects NMA was performed and summary estimates were expressed as odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals (OR; CI). Quality of evidence was critically appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Moderate quality evidence supports NSBB monotherapy (0.70; 0.49-1.00) or in combination with VBL (0.49; 0.23-1.02) or ISMN (0.44; 0.21-0.93) for decreasing mortality in patients with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices and no prior history of bleeding. Moderate-quality evidence supports carvedilol (0.21; 0.08-0.56) and VBL monotherapy (0.33; 0.19-0.55) or in combination with NSBB (0.34; 0.14-0.86), and low-quality evidence supports NSBB monotherapy (0.64; 0.38-1.07) for primary prevention of variceal bleeding. VBL carries a higher risk of serious adverse events compared with NSBB. Conclusion: NSBB monotherapy may decrease all-cause mortality and the risk of first variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices. Additionally, NSBB carries a lower risk of serious complications compared with VBL. Therefore, NSBB may be the preferred initial approach for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding.

Prevention of portal hypertension: from variceal development to clinical decompensation

Pharmacological treatment of portal hypertension (PH) has been exclusively devoted to gastroesophageal varices-related events at different frameworks, including prophylactic, emergency, or preventive therapy. The goals of treatment are to avoid the first bleeding episode, stop active bleeding, and prevent bleeding recurrence, respectively. The objective of preprimary prophylaxis (PPP) is to avoid variceal development, and therefore it necessarily deals with patients with cirrhosis at earlier stages of the disease. At these earlier stages, nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) have been ineffective in preventing the development of varices and other complications of PH. Therefore, treatment should not rely on NSBB. It is possible that, at these earlier stages, etiological treatment of liver disease itself could prevent progression of PH. This review will focus mainly on early treatment of PH, because, if successful, it may translate into histological-hemodynamic improvements, avoiding not only variceal development, but also other PH-related complications, such as ascites and portosystemic encephalopathy. Moreover, the advent of new therapies may allow not only the prevention of the complications of PH, but also the chance of a substantial degree of regression in the cirrhotic process, with the possible prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).