A randomized controlled trial comparing ligation and sclerotherapy as emergency endoscopic treatment added to somatostatin in acute variceal bleeding

Review article: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding - review of current evidence and implications for management

BACKGROUND

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common emergency requiring hospital-based care. Advances in care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases have led to improvements in clinical outcomes.

AIMS

To provide a detailed, evidence-based update on major aspects of care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases.

METHODS

We performed a structured bibliographic database search for each topic. If a recent high-quality meta-analysis was not available, we performed a meta-analysis with random effects methods and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Pre-endoscopic management of UGIB includes risk stratification, a restrictive red blood cell transfusion policy unless the patient has cardiovascular disease, and pharmacologic therapy with erythromycin and a proton pump inhibitor. Patients with cirrhosis should be treated with prophylactic antibiotics and vasoactive medications. Tranexamic acid should not be used. Endoscopic management of UGIB depends on the aetiology. For peptic ulcer disease (PUD) with high-risk stigmata, endoscopic therapy, including over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) and TC-325 powder spray, should be performed. For variceal bleeding, treatment should be customised by severity and anatomic location. Post-endoscopic management includes early enteral feeding for all UGIB patients. For high-risk PUD, PPI should be continued for 72 h, and rebleeding should initially be evaluated with a repeat endoscopy. For variceal bleeding, high-risk patients or those with further bleeding, a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt can be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of acute UGIB should include treatment plans for pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases of care, and customise treatment decisions based on aetiology and severity of bleeding.

Editorial: Shorter course of intravenous terlipressin in acute variceal bleeding - the promise, controversies and future directions

This article is linked to Vaishnav et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17868 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17893

[Gastrointestinal bleeding in old age]

Gastrointestinal bleeding is a frequent symptom, with increasing age as a risk factor. Upper, middle and lower gastrointestinal bleeding are differentiated depending on the location, whereby only upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding are elucidated in this article. The symptomatology varies depending on the localization of the bleeding. German and international clinical guidelines currently exist for the preclinical and clinical management of gastrointestinal bleeding. The main focus of the article is on pre-endoscopic management of upper gastrointestinal nonvariceal and variceal bleeding, including the risk stratification, transfusion and coagulation management as well as the initial pharmacological treatment. In addition, current developments in endoscopic and interventional treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding are highlighted.

One in four patients with gastrointestinal bleeding develops shock or hemodynamic instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hemodynamic instability and shock are associated with untoward outcomes in gastrointestinal bleeding. However, there are no studies in the existing literature on the proportion of patients who developed these outcomes after gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIM

To determine the pooled event rates in the available literature and specify them based on the bleeding source.

METHODS

The protocol was registered on PROSPERO in advance (CRD42021283258). A systematic search was performed in three databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) on 14th October 2021. Pooled proportions with 95%CI were calculated with a random-effects model. A subgroup analysis was carried out based on the time of assessment (on admission or during hospital stay). Heterogeneity was assessed by Higgins and Thompson's I2 statistics. The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool was used for the risk of bias assessment. The Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/) tool was applied to obtain the latest highlight articles.

RESULTS

We identified 11589 records, of which 220 studies were eligible for data extraction. The overall proportion of shock and hemodynamic instability in general gastrointestinal bleeding patients was 0.25 (95%CI: 0.17-0.36, I2 = 100%). In non-variceal bleeding, the proportion was 0.22 (95%CI: 0.14-0.31, I2 = 100%), whereas it was 0.25 (95%CI: 0.19-0.32, I2 = 100%) in variceal bleeding. The proportion of patients with colonic diverticular bleeding who developed shock or hemodynamic instability was 0.12 (95%CI: 0.06-0.22, I2 = 90%). The risk of bias was low, and heterogeneity was high in all analyses.

CONCLUSION

One in five, one in four, and one in eight patients develops shock or hemodynamic instability on admission or during hospitalization in the case of non-variceal, variceal, and colonic diverticular bleeding, respectively.

Pre-transjugular-intrahepatic-portosystemic-shunt measurement of hepatic venous pressure gradient and its clinical application: A comparison study

BACKGROUND

It is controversial whether transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement can improve long-term survival.

AIM

To assess whether TIPS placement improves survival in patients with hepatic-venous-pressure-gradient (HVPG) ≥ 16 mmHg, based on HVPG-related risk stratification.

METHODS

Consecutive variceal bleeding patients treated with endoscopic therapy + nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) or covered TIPS placement were retrospectively enrolled between January 2013 and December 2019. HVPG measurements were performed before therapy. The primary outcome was transplant-free survival; secondary endpoints were rebleeding and overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE).

RESULTS

A total of 184 patients were analyzed (mean age, 55.27 years ± 13.86, 107 males; 102 in the EVL+NSBB group, 82 in the covered TIPS group). Based on the HVPG-guided risk stratification, 70 patients had HVPG < 16 mmHg, and 114 patients had HVPG ≥ 16 mmHg. The median follow-up time of the cohort was 49.5 mo. There was no significant difference in transplant-free survival between the two treatment groups overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35-1.05; P = 0.07). In the high-HVPG tier, transplant-free survival was higher in the TIPS group (HR, 0.44; 95%CI: 0.23-0.85; P = 0.004). In the low-HVPG tier, transplant-free survival after the two treatments was similar (HR, 0.86; 95%CI: 0.33-0.23; P = 0.74). Covered TIPS placement decreased the rate of rebleeding independent of the HVPG tier (P < 0.001). The difference in OHE between the two groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.09; P = 0.48).

CONCLUSION

TIPS placement can effectively improve transplant-free survival when the HVPG is greater than 16 mmHg.

Effectiveness of Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy in the Prevention of Bleeding After Prophylactic Endoscopic Variceal Band Ligation

Background Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is a surgical intervention that can work well to curb variceal bleeding in people with liver cirrhosis. However, it could make ulcer bleeding worse and be fatal in some cases. The widespread use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) in cirrhotic individuals with variceal bleeding is empirical rather than based on scientific data. According to many studies, PPIs reduce the size of post-EVL ulcers. This study aimed to see if PPI use could reduce rebleeding after endoscopy therapy in cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding. Methodology A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital from August 2019 to September 2021. Cirrhotic patients with bleeding gastroesophageal varices (GEVs) who had undergone EVL at the same hospital were enrolled in the study. Medical records were organized, and the sample was divided into two groups based on whether or not PPI was given. Both PPI and non-PPI patients had their endoscopic findings, initial hemostasis outcomes, rebleeding rates, bleeding-related mortality rates, and treatment-related comorbidities compared. Results A total of 46 patients were selected for the study and divided into two groups (PPI group n=28 and non-PPI group n=18). The majority of the patients were males. The PPI group had a mean age of 58.6 ±7.8 years, whereas the non-PPI group had a mean age of 53.6 ±4.4 years. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection was the most prevalent cause of cirrhosis in both groups. After endoscopic treatment, three patients (16%) in the non-PPI group suffered a variceal hemorrhage. Bleeding-related fatalities and the time it took for the bleeding to stop varied significantly between the two groups. History of variceal bleeding (relative risk (RR)=1.45; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.60-7.67; p=0.02), presence of gastric varices (RR=2.23; 95% CI, 2.56-9.832; p=0.035), and not administering PPIs (RR =7.542; 95% CI, 3.98-29.13; p=0.008) were linked with rebleeding. The presence of red concurrent esophageal varices (RR=6.37; 95% CI, 0.562-15.342; p=0.002) and failure to provide PPIs (RR=2.3; 95% CI, 1.621-25.64; p=0.04) were linked with post-EVL bleeding in a multivariate analysis. Conclusions Proton pump inhibitors reduce the occurrence of early bleeding and adverse events after EVL in cirrhotic patients. Not prescribing PPIs and the presence of GEVs were substantially related to a higher risk of bleeding during preventative EVL. Not initiating PPI medication immediately was the sole predictor of bleeding complications in patients who had undergone EVL without gastric varix treatment. To lower the risk of post-EVL ulcer bleeding, we recommend PPI use in patients undergoing EVL.

The influences of timing of urgent endoscopy in patients with acute variceal bleeding: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

There has always been a debate on the optimal timing of endoscopy in patients with acute variceal bleeding (AVB).

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the relation between the timing of endoscopy and the short-term outcomes of patients with AVB.

METHODS

Patients with AVB who underwent endoscopy within 24 h after admission at our tertiary care center from 2014 to 2022 were evaluated retrospectively. The primary outcomes were the 6-week mortality and re-bleeding. The secondary outcomes included the total number of blood units transfused, the length of hospital stay, and the need for salvage therapy. We used Cox proportional hazards model to analyze the predictors of 6-week mortality in all patients as well as in those who were at high risk of further bleeding or death.

RESULTS

A total of 312 patients were enrolled. Among them, 170 patients (54.49%) underwent urgent endoscopy (< 6 h), and 142 patients (45.51%) underwent early endoscopy (6-24 h). There were no significant differences between the urgent-endoscopy group and the early-endoscopy group, regarding the 6-week mortality (16.47% vs. 10.56%; P value = 0.132) and 6-week re-bleeding rate (11.2% vs. 16.2%; P value = 0.196). In multivariate analysis, time to endoscopy was independent of 6-week mortality (P value = 0.170), but the time between the beginning of bleeding and endoscopy (within 12 h) was significantly associated with low 6-week mortality (OR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.06-0.46; P value = 0.001). Time to endoscopy was still not associated with 6-week mortality in patients at high risk for further bleeding or death (Glasgow-Blatchford score ≥ 12, n = 138, P value = 0.902).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopy performed within 6 h of admission, rather than within 6 to 24 h, did not improve six-week clinical outcomes in patients in stable condition with AVB and even those who were at high risk of further bleeding and death.

Investigation report on endoscopic management of esophagogastric variceal bleeding by Chinese endoscopists

BACKGROUND

Esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB) is a potentially life-threatening complication of portal hypertension. Endoscopic treatment combined with pharmacotherapy remains the mainstay in the management of acute variceal bleeding.

AIM

This article intends to highlight the potential differences in the endoscopic management of EGVB in China.

METHODS

A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted. Endoscopists from 85 hospitals in 62 cities from 26 provinces were contacted by email. The items in questionnaire involved academic experience, screening, esophagogastric varices (EGV) classification, emergency treatment, and primary and secondary prophylaxis of EGVB by endoscopists with different lengths of experience.

RESULTS

A total of 85 questionnaires were collected. There was no statistical difference in the selection of items (P < .05 indicated statistical significance). The majority of endoscopists (95.29%) offered EGV screening for patients with liver cirrhosis. The location, diameter, and risk factor classification was selected by 82.35% of endoscopists. Endoscopy + medication was preferred (42.35%) for the primary prophylaxis of moderate-to-severe EGVs. There was no statistical difference in emergency intervention time for active EGVB (P > .05). The response "patients receive emergency endoscopic intervention within 12 hours" was selected by 61.2% of the endoscopists. The preferred emergency treatment for EGVB was combination treatment (40%). Tissue adhesive embolization was selected for the treatment of gastric variceal bleeding by 74.12% of endoscopists; transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt/percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization were selected as remedial measures by 48.23% to 52.94% of endoscopists. In addition, 67.06% of endoscopists elected to perform secondary prophylaxis and treatment within 1 week after hemostasis. Endoscopy and endoscopy + medication were selected by 44.71% and 49.41% of endoscopists, respectively, for secondary prophylaxis. The choice of laboratory indicators did not differ with length of experience.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no statistical difference in the endoscopic management of EGVB among Chinese endoscopists. The selection of diagnosis/treatment schemes was mainly based on guidelines and physician experience.

Salvage transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in patients with cirrhosis and refractory variceal bleeding: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Background

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) may be used as a salvage treatment in patients with cirrhosis and refractory variceal bleeding.

Aim

To synthesize the available evidence on the efficacy of TIPS in patients with cirrhosis and refractory variceal bleeding.

Methods

Meta‐analysis of trials evaluating TIPS in patients with cirrhosis and refractory variceal bleeding, including subgroup analysis to assess the impact of recent changes in the management of variceal bleeding (i.e., the use of Polytetrafluoroethylene‐covered TIPS and the availability of pre‐emptive TIPS as a first‐line treatment for acute variceal bleeding).

Results

Twenty‐three studies with 1430 patients were included. The pooled estimate rates were 0.33 (95% CI = 0.29–0.37) for death at 1 month–6 weeks, 0.46 (95% CI = 0.40–0.52) for death at 1 year, and 0.09 (95% CI = 0.06–0.11) for death due to rebleeding in the follow‐up. The pooled estimate rates for death at 1 month or 6 weeks were similar in subgroup analyses including studies that did not use covered TIPS or that did not include patients after the pre‐emptive TIPS area compared to the ones that did (pooled estimate rate 0.33 [95% CI = 0.28–0.38] and 0.32 [95% CI = 0.25–0.39], respectively). The pooled estimate rates were 0.16 (95% CI = 0.13–0.18) for rebleeding, 0.25 (95% CI = 0.17–0.36) for occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy, and 0.08 (95% CI = 0.05–0.13) for access to liver transplantation after TIPS insertion.

Conclusions

One third of patients with cirrhosis and refractory variceal bleeding treated with salvage TIPS died within the first 6 weeks. Recent improvements in the management of variceal bleeding did not improve the survival of patients presenting with refractory variceal bleeding.

Treatment Strategies in Emergency Endoscopy for Acute Esophageal Variceal Bleeding (CHESS1905): A Nationwide Cohort Study

Background and Aims

Emergency endoscopy is recommended for patients with acute esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) and their prognosis has improved markedly over past decades due to the increased specialization of endoscopic practice. The study aimed to compare outcomes following emergency endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in cirrhotic patients with acute EVB.

Methods

Cirrhotic patients with acute EVB who underwent emergency endoscopy were retrospectively enrolled from 2013 to 2020 across 34 university hospitals from 30 cities. The primary outcome was the incidence of 5-day rebleeding after emergency endoscopy. Subgroup analysis was stratified by Child-Pugh class and bleeding history. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed.

Results

A total of 1,017 and 382 patients were included in EIS group and EVL group, respectively. The 5-day rebleeding incidence was similar between EIS group and EVL group (4% vs. 5%, P = 0.45). The result remained the same after PSM (P = 1.00). Among Child-Pugh class A, B and C patients, there were no differences in the 5-day rebleeding incidence between the two groups after PSM (P = 0.25, 0.82, and 0.21, respectively). As for the patients with or without bleeding history, the differences between EIS group and EVL group were not significant after PSM (P = 1.00 and 0.26, respectively).

Conclusion

The nationwide cohort study indicates that EIS and EVL are both efficient emergency endoscopic treatment strategies for acute EVB. EIS should not be dismissed as an economical and effective emergency endoscopic treatment strategy of acute EVB. ClincialTrials.gov number NCT04307264.

[Diagnosis and Management of Esophageal and Gastric Variceal Bleeding: Focused on 2019 KASL Clinical Practice Guidelines for Liver Cirrhosis]

Varices are a frequent complication of liver cirrhosis and a major cause of mortality in patients with liver cirrhosis. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis complications have a poor prognosis and require careful management. Portal hypertension is the most common complication of liver cirrhosis, which is the key determinant for varices development. Increased intrahepatic vascular resistance to portal flow leads to the development of portal hypertension. Collateral vessels develop at the communication site between the systemic and portal circulation with the progression of portal hypertension. Varices are the representative collaterals, develop gradually with the progression of portal hypertension and may eventually rupture. Variceal bleeding is a major consequence of portal hypertension and causes the death of cirrhotic patients. The present paper reviews the latest knowledge regarding the diagnosis and management of esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiologic Management of Portal Hypertension

Cirrhosis is a heterogeneous disease that cannot be studied as a single entity and is classified in two main prognostic stages: compensated and decompensated cirrhosis. Portal hypertension, characterized by a pathological increase of the portal pressure and by the formation of portal-systemic collaterals that bypass the liver, is the initial and main consequence of cirrhosis and is responsible for the majority of its complications. A myriad of treatment options exists for appropriately managing the most common complications of portal hypertension, including acute variceal bleeding and refractory ascites. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

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.

Pathophysiology and Management of Variceal Bleeding

Cirrhosis is the fifth leading cause of death in adults. Advanced cirrhosis can cause significant portal hypertension (PH), which is responsible for many of the complications observed in patients with cirrhosis, such as varices. If portal pressure exceeds a certain threshold, the patient is at risk of developing life-threatening bleeding from varices. Variceal bleeding has a high incidence among patients with liver cirrhosis and carries a high risk of mortality and morbidity. The management of variceal bleeding is complex, often requiring a multidisciplinary approach involving pharmacological, endoscopic, and radiologic interventions. In terms of management, three stages can be considered: primary prophylaxis, active bleeding, and secondary prophylaxis. The main goal of primary and secondary prophylaxis is to prevent variceal bleeding. However, active variceal bleeding is a medical emergency that requires swift intervention to stop the bleeding and achieve durable hemostasis. We describe the pathophysiology of cirrhosis and PH to contextualize the formation of gastric and esophageal varices. We also discuss the currently available treatments and compare how they fare in each stage of clinical management, with a special focus on drugs that can prevent bleeding or assist in achieving hemostasis.

Lateral position intubation followed by endoscopic ultrasound-guided angiotherapy in acute esophageal variceal rupture: A case report

BACKGROUND

Massive esophageal variceal bleeding can be catastrophic, leading to high morbidity and mortality. Patients experiencing massive esophageal variceal bleeding are at high risk of aspiration and hemorrhagic shock in acute episodes. Intubation and bleeding control are the two essential steps for resuscitation of these patients.

CASE SUMMARY

A 47-year-old male patient was admitted to our hospital with upper digestive tract bleeding. He was diagnosed with alcohol-induced liver cirrhosis and consequent esophagogastric varices. As he did not show a good response to somatostatin and Sengstaken-Blakemore tube placement, the patient was scheduled for endoscopic angiotherapy under anesthesia. Preoperative assessment showed an ASA physical status of III and Child-Pugh classification B. However, massive hemorrhage occurred just after induction of anesthesia.  Intubation by video-guided laryngoscopy in the lateral decubitus position was attempted twice and was successful. After that, an experienced endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) specialist performed angiotherapy and occluded the culprit vessel. An ultra-thin gastroscope was then inserted into the endotracheal tube to extract the blood observed in the lobar bronchi. The patient suffered hemorrhagic shock with an estimated blood loss of 1500 mL in 20 min and remained in the intensive care unit for two days. The patient was discharged from our hospital eight days later without major complications.

CONCLUSION

Intubation in the lateral decubitus position and EUS-guided treatment can be life-saving procedures in patients with massive upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

Defining the advantages and exposing the limitations of endoscopic variceal ligation in controlling acute bleeding and achieving complete variceal eradication

BACKGROUND

Bleeding esophageal varices (BEV) is a potentially life-threatening complication in patients with portal hypertension with mortality rates as high as 25% within six weeks of the index variceal bleed. After control of the initial bleeding episode patients should enter a long-term surveillance program with endoscopic intervention combined with non-selective β-blockers to prevent further bleeding and eradicate EV.

AIM

To assess the efficacy of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in controlling acute variceal bleeding, preventing variceal recurrence and rebleeding and achieving complete eradication of esophageal varices (EV) in patients who present with BEV.

METHODS

A prospectively documented single-center database was used to retrospectively identify all patients with BEV who were treated with EVL between 2000 and 2018. Control of acute bleeding, variceal recurrence, rebleeding, eradication and survival were analyzed using Baveno assessment criteria.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty patients (100 men, 40 women; mean age 50 years; range, 21–84 years; Child-Pugh grade A = 32; B = 48; C = 60) underwent 160 emergency and 298 elective EVL interventions during a total of 928 endoscopy sessions. One hundred and fourteen (81%) of the 140 patients had variceal bleeding that was effectively controlled during the index banding procedure and never bled again from EV, while 26 (19%) patients had complicated and refractory variceal bleeding. EVL controlled the acute sentinel variceal bleed during the first endoscopic intervention in 134 of 140 patients (95.7%). Six patients required balloon tamponade for control and 4 other patients rebled in hospital. Overall 5-d endoscopic failure to control variceal bleeding was 7.1% (n = 10) and four patients required a salvage transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Index admission mortality was 14.2% (n = 20). EV were completely eradicated in 50 of 111 patients (45%) who survived > 3 mo of whom 31 recurred and 3 rebled. Sixteen (13.3%) of 120 surviving patients subsequently had 21 EV rebleeding episodes and 10 patients bled from other sources after discharge from hospital. Overall rebleeding from all sources after 2 years was 21.7% (n = 26). Sixty-nine (49.3%) of the 140 patients died, mainly due to liver failure (n = 46) during follow-up. Cumulative survival for the 140 patients was 71.4% at 1 year, 65% at 3 years, 60% at 5 years and 52.1% at 10 years.

CONCLUSION

EVL was highly effective in controlling the sentinel variceal bleed with an overall 5-day failure to control bleeding of 7.1%. Although repeated EVL achieved complete variceal eradication in less than half of patients with BEV, of whom 62% recurred, there was a significant reduction in subsequent rebleeding.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure as a major predictive factor for mortality in patients with variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study examined the risk factors associated with mortality in cirrhotic patients hospitalized with variceal bleeding, and evaluated the effects of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) on the prognosis of these patients.

METHODS

This study was retrospectively conducted on patients registered in the Korean acute-on-chronic liver failure study cohort, and on 474 consecutive cirrhotic patients hospitalized with variceal bleeding from January 2013 to December 2013 at 21 university hospitals. ACLF was defined as described by the European Association for the Study of Liver-Chronic Liver Failure Consortium.

RESULTS

Among a total of 474 patients, 61 patients were diagnosed with ACLF. The cumulative overall survival (OS) rate was lower in the patients with ACLF than in those without (P<0.001), and patients with higher ACLF grades had a lower OS rate (P<0.001). The chronic liver failure-sequential organ failure assessment (CLIF-SOFA) score was identified as a significant prognostic factor in patients hospitalized with variceal bleeding (hazard ratio [HR], 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.50; P<0.001), even in ACLF patients with variceal bleeding (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.46, P<0.001). Concerning the prediction of the mortality risk at 28- and 90-day using CLIF-SOFA scores, c-statistics were 0.895 (95% CI, 0.829-0.962) and 0.897 (95% CI, 0.842-0.951), respectively, and the optimal cut-off values were 6.5 and 6.5, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In cirrhotic patients hospitalized with variceal bleeding, the prognosis was poor when accompanied by ACLF, especially depending upon CLIF-SOFA score. CLIF-SOFA model well predicted the 28-day or 90-day mortality for cirrhotic patients who experienced variceal bleeding.

Universal antibiotic prophylaxis may no longer be necessary for patients with acute variceal bleeding: A retrospective observational study

A few decades ago, antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with acute variceal bleeding was reported beneficial. However, endoscopic and systemic therapy for variceal bleeding has dramatically improved since then, so the necessity of prophylactic antibiotics can be questioned. In this study, we reevaluated the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in acute variceal bleeding, using the most recent data in our hospital.We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 150 patients with acute variceal bleeding who were admitted to Kurashiki Central Hospital between January 2012 and December 2016. We compared the rates of bacterial infection, in-hospital mortality, 5-day rebleeding rate, and 30-day emergency readmission between patients treated or not treated with antibiotic prophylaxis.Forty-six patients (30.7%) received antibiotic prophylaxis; 104 (69.3%) did not. The rates of the outcomes in patients with antibiotic prophylaxis were 6.5% (bacterial infection), 4.3% (in-hospital mortality), 2.2% (5-day rebleeding), and 10.9% (30-day emergency readmission) and were not significantly different form the corresponding figures in those without antibiotic prophylaxis (1.9%, 7.7%, 1.9%, and 10.6%, respectively). Moreover, these rates in our patients, even without antibiotic prophylaxis, were much lower than rates reported in past years, perhaps because of improvements in care of patients with variceal hemorrhage.Antibiotic prophylaxis was not associated with significantly better outcomes of bacterial infection, mortality, rebleeding or readmission rate in patients with acute variceal bleeding. Universal antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with acute variceal bleeding should be reconsidered.

Emergent Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Creation in Acute Variceal Bleeding

Emergent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation is most commonly employed in the setting of acute variceal hemorrhage. Given a propensity for decompensation, these patients often require a multidisciplinary, multimodal approach involving prompt diagnosis, pharmacologic therapy, and endoscopic intervention. While successful in the majority of cases, failure to medically control initial bleeding can prompt interventional radiology consultation for emergent portal decompression via TIPS creation. This article discusses TIPS creation in emergent, acute variceal hemorrhage, reviewing the natural history of gastroesophageal varices, presentation and diagnosis of acute variceal hemorrhage, pharmacologic therapy, endoscopic approaches, patient selection and risk stratification for TIPS, technical considerations for TIPS creation, adjunctive embolotherapy, and the role of salvage TIPS versus early TIPS in acute variceal hemorrhage.

Second urgent endoscopy within 48-hour benefits cirrhosis patients with acute esophageal variceal bleeding

Urgent endoscopy (UE) is important to the diagnosis and treatment of liver cirrhosis patients with esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB). It was reported that a second-look endoscopy may benefit acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) caused by peptic ulcer, while whether it could improve UGIB caused by liver cirrhosis associated EVB remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of second UE for liver cirrhosis with EVB and further examined the potential prognostic factors.Patients aged ≥18 years who underwent UE for EVB within 2 hours after the admission were included and divided into scheduled second-look group (n = 245) and uncontrolled bleeding group (n = 352) based on the indications for second UE within 48 hours after initial endoscopy. Demographic and clinical data were collected and analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analysis were used to identify the risk factors for prognosis. The value of different scoring system was compared.Statistical differences were found on history of bleeding and hepatocellular carcinoma, ascites, endoscopic type of bleeding, between scheduled second-look group and uncontrolled bleeding group. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed that ascites, hemoglobin <60 g/L, AIMS65 score and failure to identify in initial UE were independent risk factors for bleeding uncontrolled after initial UE, and age, bilirubin level, initial unsatisfactory UE hemostasis, failure to identify bleeding on initial UE and tube/urgent TIPS suggested in initial UE were independent risk factors for 42-day mortality.A second-look UE could bring benefit for liver cirrhosis patients with EVB without increasing the complication rate.

A case of esophagojejunal varices rupture after proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The varices after proximal or total gastrectomy are uncommon because the supplying vessels are all divided. Emergent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is the cornerstone of first-line management for the diagnosis and treatment of esophageal varices. However, there is no widely accepted standard strategy for esophagojejunal varices. We report a patient with esophagojejunal varices rupture 3 months after proximal gastrectomy treated with percutaneous transhepatic obliteration.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 50-year-old man who had undergone proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction for esophagogastric junctional cancer 3 months before was admitted to the hospital due to gastrointestinal perforation. We performed emergency surgery and abdominal symptoms and inflammatory response improved postoperative. However, on POD3, he had eruptive bleeding at the just anal side of esophagojejunal anastomosis. Endoscopic clipping was unsuccessful because the mucosa was fragile and easily lacerated. Contrast-enhanced CT scan revealed the dilatation of the jejunal vein flowing into the ascending jejunal limb. Therefore, he was diagnosed as esophagojejunal varices rupture and percutaneous transhepatic obliteration (PTO) was tried for hemostasis. The portal and superior mesenteric veins were catheterized with the percutaneous transhepatic approach. Contrast agent injection into the jejunal branch demonstrated retrograde flow to the azygos vein through esophagojejunal varices. The microcatheter was inserted into the variceal blood supply branch and 10 mL of 5% ethanolamine oleate with iopamidol was injected. After obliteration therapy, the superior mesenteric venogram showed complete occlusion of the variceal supply branch. The patient was discharged from the hospital without any complications after 14 days.

CONCLUSION

PTO can be effective for gastroesophageal varices rupture with a dilated jejunal vein of the ascending limb, few supplying vessels, and little ascites.

Comparison of drugs facilitating endoscopy for patients with acute variceal bleeding: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the efficacy of different drugs facilitating endoscopy in patients with acute variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials which compared the efficacy of vasoactive drugs (vasopressin, terlipressin, octreotide, somatostatin) with placebo or each other. The primary outcomes were 6-week and 5-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 5-day rebleeding, control of initial bleeding and adverse events. Pairwise and network meta-analysis were performed.

RESULTS

We identified 14 RCTs involved 2,187 patients. Four drugs had comparable clinical efficacy in all involving outcomes, except for adverse events. However, we do exhibit a superiority when vasopressin (OR, 4.40; 95% CI: 1.04-19.57), terlipressin (OR, 4.58; 95% CI: 1.63-13.63), octreotide (OR, 5.79; 95% CI: 2.41-16.71) and somatostatin (OR, 5.15; 95% CI: 1.40-27.39) were compared to placebo respectively as for initial hemostasis. In addition, only octreotide was more effective than placebo in decreasing 5-day rebleeding (OR, 0.44; 95% CI: 0.22-0.90). Meanwhile, octreotide was shown to have the highest probability ranking the best to improve initial hemostasis (mean rank =1.8) and carries a lowest risk of adverse events (9.1%) and serious adverse events (0.0%) compared to other drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Balanced with curative effect and tolerability, octreotide may be the preferred vasoactive drug facilitating endoscopy.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging-based assessment of terlipressin vs. octreotide on renal function in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding (CHESS1903): study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Acute variceal bleeding is one of the critical complications in patients with liver cirrhosis. Severe renal vasoconstriction in consequence of low peripheral vascular resistance triggers the reduction of glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and thus induces acute kidney injury (AKI)/hepato-renal syndrome (HRS). Terlipressin and octreotide have been used in the management of cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding. Also, terlipressin has been recommended as the international first-line pharmacological therapy for the treatment of HRS. In addition, the use of renal functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has become increasingly prevalent in research and clinical applications. However, the renal function-protective effect of terlipressin and octreotide and the value of fMRI in monitoring renal function remains unclear in patients with cirrhosis undergoing acute variceal bleeding.

METHODS

This is a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (RCT). Participants will be 1:1 assigned randomly into either terlipressin or octreotide groups. Sixty participants with clinically and/or pathologically diagnosed cirrhosis and active gastroesophageal variceal bleeding (GVB) will be recruited in several sites in China. Participants will receive either the treatment of terlipressin or octreotide after assigned into each group. The primary end point for the trial is the renal function. The secondary end points are (I) renal perfusion; (II) renal blood oxygenation; (III) failure to control bleeding; (IV) intra-hospital rebleeding; (V) intra-hospital mortality; (VI) adverse events (AE); (VII) overall survival. Statistical analysis including multivariate Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test, etc. will be conducted.

DISCUSSION

The study will provide new insight into the protection of renal function in the process of the treatment of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04028323.

The incidence and predictors of post transarterial chemoembolization variceal bleeding in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the standard of care for intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. Variceal bleeding is a life-threatening complication and may alter the initial treatment plan. This study was aimed to elucidate the risk factors for variceal bleeding in HCC patients receiving TACE treatment.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2016, a total of 1233 treatment-naive HCC patients receiving first time TACE treatment in Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou medical center were recruited. Pre-TACE status including baseline characteristics, prior history of ascites, and parameters for liver function evaluation were analyzed. All the variables were compared between patients with and without variceal bleeding.

RESULTS

Among the 1233 patients, the median age was 63.7 (range 25.8-91.5) years old, and 73.5% were male. Variceal bleeding events were documented in 19 patients (1.5%) within 3 months post TACE treatment. Patients with younger age, cirrhosis, pre-treatment ascites and advanced fibrosis status (higher MELD score, CTP score, ALBI grade, FIB-4 and APRI score) were more likely to encounter post-treatment variceal bleeding. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed existence of ascites (adjusted HR: 4.859 (1.947-12.124), p = 0.001), and higher FIB-4 score (adjusted HR: 4.481 (1.796-11.179), p = 0.001) were the independent predictive factors for variceal bleeding. Patients with post-TACE variceal bleeding are more likely to encounter tumor progression (42.1% vs. 20.3%, p = 0.039) and mortality owing to GI bleeding (15.8% vs. 3%, p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of post-TACE variceal bleeding was 1.5%. Patients with post-TACE variceal bleeding have poorer TACE treatment response. The pre-treatment ascites and FIB-4 score are the independent predictors for post-TACE variceal bleeding.

Prediction of the varices needing treatment with non-invasive tests in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease

BACKGROUNDS & AIMS

The Baveno VI guidelines proposed criteria including liver stiffness (LS) and platelet count to avoid screening endoscopy in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD). This study was performed to validate the Baveno IV criteria and to compare its diagnostic accuracy with other non-invasive models.

METHODS

Patients with cACLD who underwent laboratory tests, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and abdominal ultrasound within 6 months of transient elastography were included.

RESULTS

A total of 1218 patients with cACLD were included. VNT occurred in 249 patients (20.4%). With the Baveno VI criteria, the VNT miss rate was 1.9% with a 25.7% saved endoscopy rate. Using two criteria of LS <20 kPa and platelet count >110 × 10⁹  cells/L or LS <25 kPa and platelet count >120 × 10⁹  cells/L, the saved endoscopy rate was 39.1% while maintaining the VNT miss rate <5%. The optimal LS and platelet count-based criteria for predicting VNT differed according to the underlying liver disease. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of LS-spleen diameter to platelet score (LSPS) was 0.780 (95% confidence interval: 0.774-0.820), which was significantly higher than other models. The optimal cut-off value of the LSPS for predicting VNT was 1.47.

CONCLUSION

Liver stiffness and platelet count-based criteria are useful for discriminating patients with very low risk of having VNT among patients with cACLD and are partly affected by the type of underlying liver disease. Conversely, the LSPS is a predictor of VNT in patients with cACLD regardless of the type of underlying liver disease.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure: Objective admission and support criteria in the intensive care unit

Cirrhosis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world. Significant complications include variceal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, and infection. When these complications are severe, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) is often required for organ support and management. Intensive care therapy can also serve as a bridge to liver transplantation. Along with decompensation of cirrhosis, the concept of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) has emerged. This involves an acute precipitating event, such as the development of infection in a patient with cirrhosis, which leads to acute deterioration of hepatic function and extrahepatic organ failure. Extrahepatic complications often include renal, cardiovascular, and respiratory failures. Patients with significant extrahepatic and hepatic failures need ICU admission for organ support. Again, in patients who are deemed suitable liver transplant candidates, intensive care management may allow bridging to liver transplantation. However, patients with a Chronic Liver Failure Consortium ACLF score greater than 70 at 48 to 72 hours post-ICU admission do not seem to benefit from ongoing intensive support and a palliative approach may be more appropriate.

A study on spleen transient elastography in predicting the degree of esophageal varices and bleeding

This study aims to investigate the value and determine the accuracy of spleen stiffness in predicting the degree of esophageal varices and bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis.The age, gender, liver stiffness, spleen stiffness, and gastroscopy results of 124 inpatients or outpatients with liver cirrhosis and healthy volunteers, who underwent both gastroscopy and FibroScan testing in the fasting state, were retrospectively analyzed. According to the gastroscopy results, the patients and healthy volunteers were divided into six groups: varicose bleeding, severe varices, moderate varices, mild varices, no varices, and healthy control group. Then, the receiver operating characteristic curves were drawn, and the corresponding area under each curve was calculated and evaluated to predict the severity of varices based on the relevance of the area and its parameters.The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of liver stiffness and spleen stiffness for predicting severe and moderate varices in the bleeding group was 0.955 and 0.989, respectively. The cut-off values were 29.6 kPa and 45.5 kPa, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of liver stiffness for predicting varicose bleeding was 0.860 (95% CI: 0.789-0.931). The liver stiffness cut-off value for predicting varicose bleeding was 33.2 kPa, with a specificity and sensitivity of 66.02% and 95.24%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of spleen stiffness for predicting varicose bleeding was 0.923 (95% CI: 0.875-0.971). A spleen stiffness cut-off value of 55.2 kPa had a sensitivity and specificity of 90.48% and 86.41%, respectively.Spleen stiffness can predict the degree of esophageal varices and bleeding in liver cirrhosis patients, and has good predictive accuracy.

The Use of Vasoconstrictors in Acute Variceal Bleeding: How Long Is Enough?

Vasoconstrictors are often used as the first line therapy for acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. They might also be used for a few days after endoscopic therapy to prevent early rebleeding. International guidelines recommend the use of vasoconstrictor therapy when acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage is suspected and continuation of the therapy until 3 to 5 days after endoscopic treatment. However, the duration of use of vasoconstrictors after endoscopic therapy is not clear. This review shows that if variceal bleeding is successfully controlled by endoscopic variceal ligation, the combination of vasoconstrictors can be reduced to less than 1 day.

Update on the management of gastrointestinal varices

Cirrhosis of liver is a major problem in the western world. Portal hypertension is a complication of cirrhosis and can lead to a myriad of pathology of which include the development of porto-systemic collaterals. Gastrointestinal varices are dilated submucosal veins, which often develop at sites near the formation of gastroesophageal collateral circulation. The incidence of varices is on the rise due to alcohol and obesity. The most significant complication of portal hypertension is life-threatening bleeding from gastrointestinal varices, which is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. In addition, this can cause a significant burden on the health care facility. Gastrointestinal varices can happen in esophagus, stomach or ectopic varices. There has been considerable progress made in the understanding of the natural history, pathophysiology and etiology of portal hypertension. Despite the development of endoscopic and medical treatments, early mortality due to variceal bleeding remains high due to significant illness of the patient. Recurrent variceal bleed is common and in some cases, there is refractory variceal bleed. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the management of gastrointestinal varices with an emphasis on endoscopic interventions, strategies to handle refractory variceal bleed and newer endoscopic treatment modalities. Early treatment and improved endoscopic techniques can help in improving morbidity and mortality.

Oesophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis attending a major tertiary hospital in Ghana

Introduction

Oesophageal variceal bleeding is a potentially fatal consequence of portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients. In Ghana, bleeding oesophageal varices (OV) are a significant cause of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding with comparatively high mortality. This study was to determine the prevalence of OV and its clinical correlate in cirrhotic patients.

Methods

This was a cross sectional hospital based study of 149 subjects with liver cirrhosis from 5^thNovember, 2015 to 4^th November, 2016. Demographic and other clinical data were collected using standardized questionnaire. Liver function, full blood count, HBsAg and anti-HCV Ab tests were done for all patients. All patients underwent an abdominal ultrasound to assess liver and document ascites. Upper GI endoscopy (UGIE) was done to screen for and grade varices.

Results

A total of 149 patients with a mean age of 45 ± 12.28 years were evaluated. There were 77.85% and 22.15% men and women respectively, with a male to female ratio of 3.5:1. By Child-Pugh Classification, 12 (8.16%) patients were in class A, 64 (43.54%) in class B and 71 (48.3%) in class C at presentation. On UGIE, 135 (90.60%) had varices and 14 patients (9.40%) had no varices. One hundred and eleven of the varices (82.22%) were large varices and the rest (17.78%) small varices.

Conclusion

Majority of cirrhotic patients present late with advance disease to this referral centre. Most have large varices on their first screening endoscopy. Prophylactic treatment should be considered for all cirrhotics especially patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis when UGIE cannot be done immediately.

Timing of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy does not influence short-term outcomes in patients with acute variceal bleeding

AIM

To examine the association between the timing of endoscopy and the short-term outcomes of acute variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 274 consecutive patients admitted with acute esophageal variceal bleeding of two tertiary hospitals in Korea. We adjusted confounding factors using the Cox proportional hazards model and the inverse probability weighting (IPW) method. The primary outcome was the mortality of patients within 6 wk.

RESULTS

A total of 173 patients received urgent endoscopy (i.e., ≤ 12 h after admission), and 101 patients received non-urgent endoscopy (> 12 h after admission). The 6-wk mortality rate was 22.5% in the urgent endoscopy group and 29.7% in the non-urgent endoscopy group, and there was no significant difference between the two groups before (P = 0.266) and after IPW (P = 0.639). The length of hospital stay was statistically different between the urgent group and non-urgent group (P = 0.033); however, there was no significant difference in the in-hospital mortality rate between the two groups (8.1% vs 7.9%, P = 0.960). In multivariate analyses, timing of endoscopy was not associated with 6-wk mortality (hazard ratio, 1.297; 95% confidence interval, 0.806-2.089; P = 0.284).

CONCLUSION

In cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding, the timing of endoscopy may be independent of short-term mortality.

Surgical portosystemic shunts versus devascularisation procedures for prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis

BACKGROUND

Hepatosplenic schistosomiasis is an important cause of variceal bleeding in low-income countries. Randomised clinical trials have evaluated the outcomes of two categories of surgical interventions, shunts and devascularisation procedures, for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis. The comparative overall benefits and harms of these two interventions are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of surgical portosystemic shunts versus oesophagogastric devascularisation procedures for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, reference lists of articles, and proceedings of relevant associations for trials that met the inclusion criteria (date of search 11 January 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing surgical portosystemic shunts versus oesophagogastric devascularisation procedures for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the trials and extracted data using methodological standards expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias according to domains and risk of random errors with GRADE and Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We found two randomised clinical trials including 154 adult participants, aged between 18 years and 65 years, diagnosed with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis. One of the trials randomised participants to proximal splenorenal shunt versus distal splenorenal shunt versus oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy, and the other randomised participants to distal splenorenal shunt versus oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy. In both trials the diagnosis of hepatosplenic schistosomiasis was made based on clinical and biochemical assessments. The trials were conducted in Brazil and Egypt. Both trials were at high risk of bias.We are uncertain as to whether surgical portosystemic shunts improved all-cause mortality compared with oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy due to imprecision in the trials (risk ratio (RR) 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 9.92; participants = 154; studies = 2). We are uncertain whether serious adverse events differed between surgical portosystemic shunts and oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy (RR 2.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 11.70; participants = 154; studies = 2). None of the trials reported on health-related quality of life. We are uncertain whether variceal rebleeding differed between surgical portosystemic shunts and oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.23; participants = 154; studies = 2). We found evidence suggesting an increase in encephalopathy in the shunts group versus the devascularisation with splenectomy group (RR 7.51, 95% CI 1.45 to 38.89; participants = 154; studies = 2). We are uncertain whether ascites and re-interventions differed between surgical portosystemic shunts and oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy. We computed Trial Sequential Analysis for all outcomes, but the trial sequential monitoring boundaries could not be drawn because of insufficient sample size and events. We downgraded the overall certainty of the body of evidence for all outcomes to very low due to risk of bias and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given the very low certainty of the available body of evidence and the low number of clinical trials, we could not determine an overall benefit or harm of surgical portosystemic shunts compared with oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy. Future randomised clinical trials should be designed with sufficient statistical power to assess the benefits and harms of surgical portosystemic shunts versus oesophagogastric devascularisations with or without splenectomy and with or without oesophageal transection.

Acute care and emergency general surgery in patients with chronic liver disease: how can we optimize perioperative care? A review of the literature

The increasing prevalence of advanced cirrhosis among operative candidates poses a major challenge for the acute care surgeon. The severity of hepatic dysfunction, degree of portal hypertension, emergency of surgery, and severity of patients’ comorbidities constitute predictors of postoperative mortality. Comprehensive history taking, physical examination, and thorough review of laboratory and imaging examinations typically elucidate clinical evidence of hepatic dysfunction, portal hypertension, and/or their complications. Utilization of specific scoring systems (Child-Pugh and MELD) adds objectivity to stratifying the severity of hepatic dysfunction. Hypovolemia and coagulopathy often represent major preoperative concerns. Resuscitation mandates judicious use of intravenous fluids and blood products. As a general rule, the most expeditious and least invasive operative procedure should be planned. Laparoscopic approaches, advanced energy devices, mechanical staplers, and topical hemostatics should be considered whenever applicable to improve safety. Precise operative technique must acknowledge common distortions in hepatic anatomy, as well as the risk of massive hemorrhage from porto-systemic collaterals. Preventive measures, as well as both clinical and laboratory vigilance, for postoperative hepatic and renal decompensation are essential.

Evaluation and management of variceal bleeding

Acute variceal bleeding is one of the most fatal complications of cirrhosis and is responsible for about one-third of cirrhosis-related deaths. Therefore, every effort should be made to emergently resuscitate the patients, start pharmacotherapy as soon as possible and do endoscopic therapy in a timely manner. Despite the recent advances in treatment, mortality rate is still high. We provide a comprehensive review of evaluation and management of variceal bleeding.

Clinical factors that influence the outcome of selective devascularization in the treatment of portal hypertension

There is a high incidence of death due to variceal hemorrhage in patients with portal hypertension. Factors to consider when choosing selective devascularization in the treatment of variceal hemorrhage remain a controversy. This study aims to generate the prevalent clinical risk factors that affect the outcomes of selective devascularization procedures. Elucidating these features may guide future treatment of esophageal varices in patients with portal hypertension. We retrospectively analyzed medical records of 455 patients who underwent selective devascularization procedures in our center. Patients were subject to splenectomy, selective devascularization with or without esophageal transection. The mode of surgery recurred in comparable rates in both the group with major complications postoperatively (high-risk group which consisted of 63 patients) or the group without major postoperative complications (low-risk group, 392). Risk factors that negatively influenced outcomes of surgery include severe symptoms (89% in high risk group and 71% in low risk group), large volume of blood loss in the hemorrhage before surgery (81% in high risk group and 16% in low risk group), sever liver cirrhosis (83% in high risk group and 67% in low risk group), previous endotherapy, prolonged prothrombin time, and poor liver function. Selective devascularization is a feasible option to treat variceal hemorrhage in patients with portal hypertension.

Successful treatment of repeated hematemesis secondary to postsclerotherapy esophageal ulcer in a cirrhotic patient: A case report

Esophageal variceal bleeding is a common lethal complication of cirrhosis. Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) is one of the major endoscopic approaches for treating esophageal variceal bleeding. However, complications may occur after EIS, which mainly include retrosternal discomfort/pain, dysphagia, re-bleeding, esophageal ulcer, esophageal strictures, and esophageal perforation, etc. In this article, we reported a 36-year-old male who developed esophageal ulcer related bleeding after EIS. Currently, there is no consensus on the treatment strategy for esophageal ulcer-related bleeding after EIS. In the present case, the following treatment strategy may be effective for ulcer related bleeding. The first step is to inhibit gastric acid secretion and reduce portal pressure by intravenous infusion of esomeprazole and somatostatin, respectively. The second is local hemostasis by oral norepinephrine and lyophilizing thrombin powder. The third is to protect digestive tract mucosa by oral Kangfuxin Ye and aluminum phosphate.

Prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices

Bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is a serious complication in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Although there has been significance improvement in the prognosis of variceal bleeding with advancement in diagnostic and therapeutic modalities for its management, mortality rate still remains high. Therefore, appropriate prevention and rapid, effective management of bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is very important. Recently, various studies about management of gastoesophageal varices, including prevention of development and aggravation of varices, prevention of first variceal bleeding, management of acute variceal bleeding, and prevention of variceal rebleeding, have been published. The present article reviews published articles and practice guidelines to present the most optimal management of patients with gastroesophageal varices.

Role of combined propofol and sufentanil anesthesia in endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophageal varices

AIM

To investigate the efficacy and safety of a combination of sufentanil and propofol injection in patients undergoing endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) for esophageal varices (EVs).

METHODS

Patients with severe EVs who underwent EIS with sufentanil and propofol anesthesia between April 2016 and July 2016 at our hospital were reviewed. Although EIS and sequential therapy were performed under endotracheal intubation, we only evaluated the efficacy and safety of anesthesia for the first EIS procedure. Patients were intravenously treated with 0.5-1 μg/kg sufentanil. Anesthesia was induced with 1-2 mg/kg propofol and maintained using 2-5 mg/kg per hour of propofol. Information, regarding age, sex, weight, American Association of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status, Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) classification, indications, preanesthetic problems, endoscopic procedure, successful completion of the procedure, anesthesia time, recovery time, and anesthetic agents, was recorded. Adverse events, including hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, and hypoxia, were also noted.

RESULTS

Propofol and sufentanil anesthesia was provided in 182 procedures involving 140 men and 42 women aged 56.1 ± 11.7 years (range, 25-83 years). The patients weighed 71.4 ± 10.7 kg (range, 45-95 kg) and had ASA physical status classifications of II (79 patients) or III (103 patients). Ninety-five patients had a CTP classification of A and 87 had a CTP classification of B. Intravenous anesthesia was successful in all cases. The mean anesthesia time was 33.1 ± 5.8 min. The mean recovery time was 12.3 ± 3.7 min. Hypotension occurred in two patients (1.1%, 2/182). No patient showed hypertension during the endoscopic therapy procedure. Bradycardia occurred in one patient (0.5%, 1/182), and hypoxia occurred in one patient (0.5%, 1/182). All complications were easily treated with no adverse sequelae. All endoscopic procedures were completed successfully.

CONCLUSION

The combined use of propofol and sufentanil injection in endotracheal intubation-assisted EIS for EVs is effective and safe.

Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension

Acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage is a dreaded complication of portal hypertension. Its management has evolved rapidly in recent years. Endoscopic therapy is often employed to arrest bleeding varices as well as to prevent early rebleeding. The combination of vasoconstrictor and endoscopic therapy is superior to vasoconstrictor or endoscopic therapy alone for control of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. After control of acute variceal bleeding, combination of banding ligation and beta-blockers is generally recommended to prevent variceal rebleeding. To prevent the catastrophic event of acute variceal bleeding, endoscopic banding ligation is an important tool in the prophylaxis of first bleeding. Endoscopic obturation with cyanoacrylate is usually utilized to arrest acute gastric variceal hemorrhage as well as to prevent rebleeding. It can be concluded that endoscopic therapies play a pivotal role in management of portal hypertensive bleeding.

Variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients

Variceal bleeding is one of the major causes of death in cirrhotic patients. The management during the acute phase and the secondary prophylaxis is well defined. Recent recommendations (2015 Baveno VI expert consensus) are available and should be followed for an optimal management, which must be performed as an emergency in a liver or general intensive-care unit. It is based on the early administration of a vasoactive drug (before endoscopy), an antibiotic prophylaxis and a restrictive transfusion strategy (hemoglobin target of 7 g/dL). The endoscopic treatment is based on band ligations. Sclerotherapy should be abandoned. In the most severe patients (Child Pugh C or B with active bleeding during initial endoscopy), transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) should be performed within 72 hours after admission to minimize the risk of rebleeding. Secondary prophylaxis is based on the association of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and repeated band ligations. TIPS should be considered when bleeding reoccurs in spite of a well-conducted secondary prophylaxis or when NSBBs are poorly tolerated. It should also be considered when bleeding is refractory. Liver transplantation should be discussed when bleeding is not controlled after TIPS insertion and in all cases when liver function is deteriorated.

Endoscopic Variceal Ligation followed by Argon Plasma Coagulation Against Endoscopic Variceal Ligation Alone: A Randomized Controlled Trial

GOALS

Our aim was to study the efficacy and the safety of argon plasma coagulation (APC) in secondary prophylaxis against esophageal varices in view of many contraindications and side effects to β-blockers in cirrhotic patients.

BACKGROUND

Rebleeding rates from esophageal varices after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) are high; thus, the current recommendation is to combine nonselective β-blockers to it, but side effects and relative contraindications to nonselective β-blockers hinder their usage or require discontinuation in 15% to 20% of the cirrhotic patients. Thus, it is important to find another combination.

STUDY

This study included all patients admitted to the Alexandria Main University Hospital during the period between April 2012 and October 2012 with variceal bleeding. After exclusions, the total number of included patients was 40. All participants were subjected to EVL and eradication of varices, and then they were randomized to either APC (group 1) or just observation (group 2). Both groups were followed up by endoscopy every 3 months for 30 months.

RESULTS

During the 2.5-year follow-up, 21% of the participants in group 1 experienced esophageal variceal recurrence, but no one needed rebanding. In group 2, 68.4% of the participants experienced esophageal variceal recurrence (P=0.003) and 63.2% underwent rebanding (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

APC after esophageal variceal eradication using EVL can decrease the risk of recurrence of esophageal varices and the need for rebanding. This technique may be recommended in secondary prophylaxis against esophageal variceal bleeding in those who have contraindications, are intolerant, or are noncompliant to nonselective β-blockers.

A Comparative Study of the Efficacy of the Modified Sugiura Procedure and the Hassab Procedure for Treatment of Rebleeding after Endoscopic Variceal Ligation Due to Portal Hypertension

Although the modified Sugiura procedure and Hassab procedure have been used for many years, it remains unclear as to which is more effective for the treatment of rebleeding due to portal hypertension (PHT) after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL). Hence, we conducted a retrospective study to compare the efficacy of these two procedures for treatment of rebleeding due to PHTafter EVL. Of 66 patients diagnosed with PHT and rebleeding after EVL in our institute from January 2007 to January 2014, 31 underwent the modified Sugiura procedure (Group S), whereas 35 underwent the Hassab procedure (Group H). The surgical duration, blood loss volume, blood transfusion rate, postoperative complication rate, postoperative rebleeding rate, postoperative hospital stay, and long-term complication rates were compared between groups. Greater blood loss volume ( P = 0.036), higher blood transfusion rate ( P = 0.002), and longer surgical duration ( P < 0.001) were observed in Group S than in Group H. There was no significant difference in the rate of short-term postoperative rebleeding between the groups ( P = 0.695), although the rate of long-term rebleeding was lower ( P = 0.031) in Group S. Recurrence of esophageal varices in Group S was less frequent in Group H ( P = 0.002), although there was no significant difference between the groups in the rates of recurrence of gastric varices and other long-term complications ( P > 0.05). The modified Sugiura procedure is more effective than the Hassab procedure for the treatment of rebleeding after EVL.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: self-expanding metal stents in patients with cirrhosis and severe or refractory oesophageal variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding is very poor when the standard-of-care fails to control bleeding. New treatment modalities are needed in these patients.

AIM

To synthesise the available evidence on the efficacy of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) in patients with cirrhosis and severe or refractory oesophageal variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Meta-analysis of trials evaluating SEMS in patients with cirrhosis and severe or refractory oesophageal variceal bleeding.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included. The pooled estimate rates were 0.40 (95% confidence interval, CI = 0.31-0.49) for death, 0.41 (95% CI = 0.29-0.53) for liver-related death and 0.36 (95% CI = 0.26-0.47) for death at day 30, with low heterogeneity between studies. The pooled estimate rates were 0.12 (95% CI = 0.07-0.21) for mortality related to variceal bleeding, and 0.18 (95% CI = 0.11-0.29) for failure to control bleeding with SEMS, with no or low heterogeneity between studies. The pooled estimate rate were 0.16 (95% CI = 0.04-0.48) for rebleeding after stent removal and 0.28 (95% CI = 0.17-0.43) for stent migration, with high heterogeneity. A significant proportion of patients had access to liver transplantation or to TIPSS [pooled estimate rate 0.10 (95% CI = 0.04-0.21) and 0.26 (95% CI = 0.18-0.36), respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than 40% of patients treated with SEMS were dead at 1 month. SEMS can be used as a bridge to TIPSS or to liver transplantation in a significant proportion of patients. Additional studies are required to identify potential risk factors leading to a poor prognosis in patients with acute variceal bleeding in whom the use of SEMS could be considered.

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.

Predictors of In-Hospital Mortality in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and Acute Variceal bleeding

Introduction

Detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhotic patients remains a serious, unsolved problem, and the risk factors for acute variceal bleeding (AVB) in HCC patients remain unclear. This study aimed to determine the in-hospital mortality (IHM) and factors influencing the clinical outcomes of AVB in patients with liver cirrhosis and HCC.

Methods

This was a retrospective, non-randomized, clinical study that was conducted in 2014. The study was conducted on 70 patients with liver cirrhosis and HCC presenting by acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIH). All patients were examined endoscopically within 24 hours from presentation and bleeding varices accounted for AUGIH. Full medical history, clinical examination, and laboratory and radiologic data were collected from admission charts, and hospital medical records were statistically analyzed with SSPS version 22.

Results

Thirty-two patients (45.7%) survived and 38 died (54.3%). Survivors are more likely to be Child-Pugh class A or B, and the non-survivors were class C. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) was highly predictive of IHM at an optimized cut-off value of ≥ 12.9. Higher esophageal varices grades and presence of active bleeding on index endoscopy were significant (p < 0.01) in the non-survivors compared to survivors. Complications of liver cirrhosis and associated major comorbidity were significantly higher (p < 0.01) in the non-survivors than the survivors. Univariate logistic regression analysis identified higher Grade Esophageal Varices and number of transfused packed red blood cells units as two independent predictors of IHM.

Conclusions

IHM was particularly high (54.3%) among HCC patients with AVB who had MELD score > 12.9, higher grade Esophageal Varices, active bleeding on index endoscopy, more increased needs for blood transfusion, longer hospital stay, decompensated liver disease with major comorbidity.