Endoscopic ligation vs. nadolol in the prevention of first variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis

Improving primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding by adapting therapy to the clinical stage of cirrhosis. A competing-risk meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Non-selective β-blockers (NSBBs) and endoscopic variceal-ligation (EVL) have similar efficacy preventing first variceal bleeding. Compensated and decompensated cirrhosis are markedly different stages, which may impact treatment outcomes. We aimed to assess the efficacy of NSBBs vs EVL on survival in patients with high-risk varices without previous bleeding, stratifying risk according to compensated/decompensated stage of cirrhosis.

METHODS

By systematic review, we identified RCTs comparing NSBBs vs EVL, in monotherapy or combined, for primary bleeding prevention. We performed a competing-risk, time-to-event meta-analysis, using individual patient data (IPD) obtained from principal investigators of RCTs. Analyses were stratified according to previous decompensation of cirrhosis.

RESULTS

Of 25 RCTs eligible, 14 failed to provide IPD and 11 were included, comprising 1400 patients (656 compensated, 744 decompensated), treated with NSBBs (N = 625), EVL (N = 546) or NSBB+EVL (N = 229). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Overall, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs (subdistribution hazard-ratio (sHR) = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.75-1.49) and with EVL + NSBBs vs either monotherapy, with low heterogeneity (I2  = 28.7%). In compensated patients, mortality risk was higher with EVL vs NSBBs (sHR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.11-2.77) and not significantly lower with NSBBs+EVL vs NSBBs, without heterogeneity (I2  = 0%). In decompensated patients, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs and with NSBBs+EVL vs. either monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with compensated cirrhosis and high-risk varices on primary prophylaxis, NSBBs significantly improved survival vs EVL, with no additional benefit noted adding EVL to NSBBs. In decompensated patients, survival was similar with both therapies. The study suggests that NSBBs are preferable when advising preventive therapy in compensated patients.

Endoscopic band ligation is safe despite low platelet count and high INR

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is used to prevent variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis. The association of thrombocytopenia, high INR (international normalized ratio) and liver dysfunction with the risk of procedure-related bleeding (PRB) remains debated and recommendations are controversial.

METHODS

We analyzed real-life data of cirrhotic patients undergoing elective EBL at two large Viennese centers between Q1/2000-Q1/2018. PRB was defined as bleeding occurring within 30 days after EBL.

RESULTS

We included 617 patients undergoing a total of 1178 prophylactic EBL procedures (median 2 per patient). Sixteen (2.6%) of 617 patients experienced PRB after a median of 12.5 (IQR 17.3) days with no difference in characteristics and laboratory values between the two groups. The proportion of patients with platelets (PLT) < 50 G/L or INR ≥ 1.5 was similar in patients with vs. without PRB. A higher MELD showed a non-significant association with EBL-related bleeding risk (odds ratio, OR 1.07; 95% confidence interval 95% CI 1.00-1.16, p = 0.058). While serum bilirubin was a significant predictor for PRB (OR: 1.10; 95% CI 1.03-1.18), the presence of large varices (OR 0.85 vs. small varices; 95% CI 0.20-3.84), INR (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.10-3.14), PLT (OR 1.00; 95% CI 1.00-1.01) and the use of non-selective betablockers (OR 1.20; CI 95% 0.38-3.76) were not associated with PRB.

CONCLUSION

EBL is safe and procedure-related bleedings are rare (2.6%) including in patients with thrombocytopenia < 50 G/L or high INR ≥ 1.5. Only high MELD, and especially high bilirubin seem to be linked to an increased risk of EBL-related bleeding.

Non-selective beta-blockers and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a serious complication of cirrhosis. Currently, non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are commonly used to treat portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis. The latest research shows that NSBBs can induce apoptosis and S-phase arrest in liver cancer cells and inhibit the development of hepatic vascular endothelial cells, which may be effective in preventing HCC in cirrhosis patients. Aim: To determine the relationship between different NSBBs and HCC incidence in patients with cirrhosis. Methods: We searched the Cochrane database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. Cohort studies, case‒control studies, and randomized controlled trials were included if they involved cirrhosis patients who were divided into an experimental group using NSBBs and a control group with any intervention. Based on heterogeneity, we calculated odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effect models. We also conducted subgroup analysis to explore the source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias detection were performed. Results: A total of 47 studies included 38 reporting HCC incidence, 26 reporting HCC-related mortality, and 39 reporting overall mortality. The HCC incidence between the experimental group and the control group was OR = 0.87 (0.69 and 1.10), p = 0.000, and I2 = 81.8%. There was no significant association between propranolol (OR = 0.94 and 95%CI 0.62-1.44) or timolol (OR = 1.32 and 95%CI 0.44-3.95) and HCC incidence, while the risk of HCC decreased by 26% and 38% with nadolol (OR = 0.74 and 95%CI 0.64-0.86) and carvedilol (OR = 0.62 and 95%CI 0.52-0.74), respectively. Conclusion: Different types of NSBB have different effects on the incidence of patients with cirrhosis of the liver, where nadolol and carvedilol can reduce the risk. Also, the effect of NSBBs may vary in ethnicity. Propranolol can reduce HCC incidence in Europe and America. Systematic Review Registration: identifier https://CRD42023434175, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding in people with oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years. There are several different treatments to prevent bleeding, including: beta-blockers, endoscopic sclerotherapy, and variceal band ligation. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers to December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previous bleeding from oesophageal varices and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation or previously received prophylactic treatment for oesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed the direct comparisons from randomised clinical trials using the same codes and the same technical details.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 randomised clinical trials (6653 participants) in the review. Sixty trials (6212 participants) provided data for one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those at high risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices. The follow-up in the trials that reported outcomes ranged from 6 months to 60 months. All but one of the trials were at high risk of bias. The interventions compared included beta-blockers, no active intervention, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates, nitrates, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, and portocaval shunt. Overall, 21.2% of participants who received non-selective beta-blockers ('beta-blockers') - the reference treatment (chosen because this was the most common treatment compared in the trials) - died during 8-month to 60-month follow-up. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates all had lower mortality versus no active intervention (beta-blockers: HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.67; direct comparison HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.42 to 0.83; 10 trials, 1200 participants; variceal band ligation: HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.74; direct comparison HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.12 to 2.14; 3 trials, 355 participants; sclerotherapy: HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.85; direct comparison HR 0.61, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.90; 18 trials, 1666 participants; beta-blockers plus nitrates: HR 0.41, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.85; no direct comparison). No trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation had a higher number of serious adverse events (number of events) than beta-blockers (rate ratio 10.49, 95% CrI 2.83 to 60.64; 1 trial, 168 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers plus nitrates had a higher number of 'any adverse events (number of participants)' than beta-blockers alone (OR 3.41, 95% CrI 1.11 to 11.28; 1 trial, 57 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, adverse events (number of events) were higher in sclerotherapy than in beta-blockers (rate ratio 2.49, 95% CrI 1.53 to 4.22; direct comparison rate ratio 2.47, 95% CrI 1.27 to 5.06; 2 trials, 90 participants), and in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.08 to 2.76; 1 trial, 140 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was lower in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.04 to 0.71; 1 trial, 173 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was higher in nitrates than beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 6.40, 95% CrI 1.58 to 47.42; 1 trial, 52 participants). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates may decrease mortality compared to no intervention in people with high-risk oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis and no previous history of bleeding. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in a higher number of serious adverse events than beta-blockers. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of beta-blockers versus variceal band ligation on variceal bleeding. The evidence also indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in most of the remaining comparisons.

Positive consequences of splenectomy for patients with schistosomiasis-induced variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Patients with hepatic schistosomiasis are at high risk of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding, which is highly torrential and life threatening. This study aimed to assess the effects of splenectomy on patients with schistosomiasis-induced variceal bleeding, especially those influences related to overall survival (OS) rate.

METHODS

From January 2005 to December 2018, 112 patients with schistosomiasis-induced varices were enrolled. In that period, all the patients with hepatic schistosomiasis who received endoscopic treatment for primary and secondary prophylaxis of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding were found eligible. The patients were divided into splenectomized group (n = 44, 39.3%) and control group (n = 68, 60.7%).

RESULTS

Multivariate regression analysis of OS showed that splenectomy, hepatic carcinoma, and times of endoscopic treatment were independent prognostic factors for OS. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the 5-year OS rate was 82.7% in splenectomized group versus 53.2% in control group (P = 0.037). The rate of no recurrence of variceal bleeding during 5-year (56.8% vs. 47.7%, P = 0.449) indicated that there was no significant difference between the two groups. Patients who received splenectomy had increased risk of portal vein thrombosis (52.3% vs. 29.4%, P = 0.012) and decreased proportion of severe ascites (20.5% vs 50.0%, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Splenectomy prior to endoscopic treatment provides a superior long-term survival for patients with schistosomiasis-induced variceal bleeding.

Band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including haemorrhage from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal haemorrhage commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Prevention is therefore important. Following numerous randomised clinical trials demonstrating efficacy of non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation in decreasing the incidence of variceal haemorrhage, primary prophylaxis of variceal haemorrhage in adults has become the established standard of care. Hence, band ligation and beta-blockers have been proposed to be used as primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of band ligation compared with any type of beta-blocker for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (February 2019), CENTRAL (December 2018), PubMed (December 2018), Embase Ovid (December 2018), LILACS (Bireme; January 2019), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science; December 2018). We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications and performed a manual search from the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conferences (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from 2009 to 2018. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. We planned to also include quasi-randomised and other observational studies retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials for report of harm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials using standard Cochrane methodologies.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised clinical trials assessing band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. There is a need for well-designed, adequately powered randomised clinical trials to assess the benefits and harms of band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. Those randomised clinical trials should include patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality, failure to control bleeding, and adverse events.

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.

Long-term outcome of endoscopic variceal band ligation of esophageal varices in patients with chronic liver disease

BACKGROUND

There are scanty data on the long-term outcome of endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVL) for esophageal varices.

METHODS

Adult patients suffering from a chronic liver disease (CLD) undergoing EVL of esophageal varices of grade 2 and above between January 2006 and December 2015 were followed up for the recurrence of varices, worsening of portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG), rebleeding, and mortality. EVL was done as primary prophylaxis of bleeding in 72 and as secondary prophylaxis in 175 patients. All received propranolol after EVL if there was no contraindication.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-seven CLD patients (mean age 51.83 ± 11.28 years, 179 males) underwent 306 EVL sessions. The most common etiology was alcohol (53%). Sixty-eight percent of patients had grade 3 esophageal varices 76.5% had PHG. There was no immediate post-EVL bleeding or 30-day mortality. Variceal obliteration was achieved in 100% with 19% recurrence within a mean period of 53.74 ± 27.2 months. PHG worsened in 49.7%. Overall, rebleeding occurred in 13.8%, 4.3% from recurrent varices. There was no difference in variceal recurrence (16.7% vs. 20%) and incidence of rebleeding (9.7% vs. 13.7%) between patients undergoing EVL for primary and secondary prophylaxis. Cumulative rebleeding rates after 1, 5, and 9 years were 1.6%, 9.2%, and 11.4%, respectively. The overall mortality was 85%, mostly from progressive CLD, and only 8.6% was due to rebleeding. On subgroup analysis, the factors significantly associated with rebleeding was Child-Pugh class C and worsened PHG those with mortality were alcohol and Child-Pugh class C.

CONCLUSION

EVL is effective in the long-term for both primary and secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding.

Banana may be forbidden after endoscopic variceal ligation: a case report

Acute variceal hemorrhage (AVH) is a devastating complication of liver cirrhosis. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is a useful endoscopic treatment for AVH with few complications. However, the issue regarding management of early re-bleeding after EVL still needs to be concerned. Furthermore, the dietary principle after EVL is unclear. There is no consensus regarding what food should be eaten after EVL. In this paper, we reported a patient who ate a banana after an EVL and then developed early re-bleeding episodes.

Nonselective Beta-Blockers Do Not Affect Survival in Cirrhotic Patients with Ascites

BACKGROUND

The role of nonselective beta-blockers in cirrhotic patients with ascites has been recently questioned; however, definitive evidence in this regard is still lacking.

AIMS

To analyze published data on the influence of nonselective beta-blockers as compared to control group on survival of cirrhotic patients with ascites.

METHODS

Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed. Hazard ratios from Kaplan-Meier curves were extracted in order to perform an unbiased comparison of survival estimates. Secondary outcomes were mortality in patients with refractory ascites, pooled rate of nonselective beta-blockers interruption, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and hepato-renal syndrome incidence.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies with 8279 patients were included. Overall survival was comparable between the two groups (hazard ratio = 0.86, 0.71-1.03, p = 0.11). Study design resulted as the main source of heterogeneity in sensitivity analysis and meta-regression. Mortality in refractory ascites patients was similar in the two groups (odds ratio = 0.90, 0.45-1.79; p = 0.76). No difference in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (odds ratio = 0.78, 0.47-1.29, p = 0.33) and hepato-renal syndrome incidence (odds ratio = 1.22, 0.48-3.09; p = 0.67) was observed. Pooled rate of nonselective beta-blockers interruption was 18.6% (5.2-32.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, nonselective beta-blockers should not be routinely withheld in patients with cirrhosis and ascites, even if refractory.

Methods for the evaluation of biomarkers in patients with kidney and liver diseases: multicentre research programme including ELUCIDATE RCT

Background

Protein biomarkers with associations with the activity and outcomes of diseases are being identified by modern proteomic technologies. They may be simple, accessible, cheap and safe tests that can inform diagnosis, prognosis, treatment selection, monitoring of disease activity and therapy and may substitute for complex, invasive and expensive tests. However, their potential is not yet being realised.

Design and methods

The study consisted of three workstreams to create a framework for research: workstream 1, methodology – to define current practice and explore methodology innovations for biomarkers for monitoring disease; workstream 2, clinical translation – to create a framework of research practice, high-quality samples and related clinical data to evaluate the validity and clinical utility of protein biomarkers; and workstream 3, the ELF to Uncover Cirrhosis as an Indication for Diagnosis and Action for Treatable Event (ELUCIDATE) randomised controlled trial (RCT) – an exemplar RCT of an established test, the ADVIA Centaur® Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Ltd, Camberley, UK) [consisting of a panel of three markers – (1) serum hyaluronic acid, (2) amino-terminal propeptide of type III procollagen and (3) tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1], for liver cirrhosis to determine its impact on diagnostic timing and the management of cirrhosis and the process of care and improving outcomes.

Results

The methodology workstream evaluated the quality of recommendations for using prostate-specific antigen to monitor patients, systematically reviewed RCTs of monitoring strategies and reviewed the monitoring biomarker literature and how monitoring can have an impact on outcomes. Simulation studies were conducted to evaluate monitoring and improve the merits of health care. The monitoring biomarker literature is modest and robust conclusions are infrequent. We recommend improvements in research practice. Patients strongly endorsed the need for robust and conclusive research in this area. The clinical translation workstream focused on analytical and clinical validity. Cohorts were established for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and renal transplantation (RT), with samples and patient data from multiple centres, as a rapid-access resource to evaluate the validity of biomarkers. Candidate biomarkers for RCC and RT were identified from the literature and their quality was evaluated and selected biomarkers were prioritised. The duration of follow-up was a limitation but biomarkers were identified that may be taken forward for clinical utility. In the third workstream, the ELUCIDATE trial registered 1303 patients and randomised 878 patients out of a target of 1000. The trial started late and recruited slowly initially but ultimately recruited with good statistical power to answer the key questions. ELF monitoring altered the patient process of care and may show benefits from the early introduction of interventions with further follow-up. The ELUCIDATE trial was an ‘exemplar’ trial that has demonstrated the challenges of evaluating biomarker strategies in ‘end-to-end’ RCTs and will inform future study designs.

Conclusions

The limitations in the programme were principally that, during the collection and curation of the cohorts of patients with RCC and RT, the pace of discovery of new biomarkers in commercial and non-commercial research was slower than anticipated and so conclusive evaluations using the cohorts are few; however, access to the cohorts will be sustained for future new biomarkers. The ELUCIDATE trial was slow to start and recruit to, with a late surge of recruitment, and so final conclusions about the impact of the ELF test on long-term outcomes await further follow-up. The findings from the three workstreams were used to synthesise a strategy and framework for future biomarker evaluations incorporating innovations in study design, health economics and health informatics.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN74815110, UKCRN ID 9954 and UKCRN ID 11930.

Funding

This project was funded by the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 6, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Decreased portal vein velocity is predictive of the development of portal vein thrombosis: A matched case-control study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in cirrhosis may lead to hepatic decompensation and increased mortality. We aimed to investigate if decreased portal vein (PV) velocity is associated with future PVT.

METHODS

Data on adult patients with cirrhosis and PVT between January 1, 2005 and July 30, 2015 were obtained. Cases with PVT were matched by age, gender and Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score to corresponding controls without PVT. Cox proportional hazards models, receiver operator curves and Kaplan Meier curves were constructed.

RESULTS

One hundred subjects (50 matched pairs) with mean age 53.8±13.1 y and MELD score 14.9±5.5 were included in our analysis. Sixty-four percent were male and 76% were Child-Turcotte-Pugh Class A or B. Baseline characteristics (prior to development of PVT) were similar, except for baseline PV velocity (16.9 cm/s, 95% CI 13.9-20.0 PVT vs 25.0, 95% CI 21.8-28.8 no PVT, P<.001). 30 PVT subjects had PV velocity <15 cm/s compared to five without PVT (P<.001). On adjusted multivariable analysis, PV velocity was the strongest independent risk factor predicting PVT development (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.93). The predictive value for PVT development was greatest for flow <15 cm/s (c-statistic 0.77). PV velocity <15 cm/s had a highly significant association with future PVT (HR 6.00, 95% CI 2.20-16.40, P=<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Decreased PV velocity is associated with increased risk of future PVT. Patients with cirrhosis and decreased PV velocity are a high-risk subgroup that warrants further investigation with prospective study.

Favorable Effects of Endoscopic Ligation Combined with Drugs on Rebleeding and Mortality in Cirrhotic Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess the effects of combination therapies (endoscopic plus drug[s], drug combinations) on variceal/any-cause rebleeding and mortality among cirrhotic patients with one previous episode of variceal hemorrhage.

SUMMARY

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for eligible studies. We included 26 randomized controlled trials involving 2,536 adults using OR to measure the effects. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) plus nadolol ranked first for reducing recurrent bleeds. Both EVL + nadolol and EVL + drugs (nadolol, sucralfate) decreased the risk of any-cause rebleeding than EVL alone (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12-0.97; OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18-0.88, respectively). Meanwhile, EVL + drugs ranked first lowering mortality rates (P-score >0.85) with a marginal superiority over EVL alone (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26-1.01). Beta-blockers with isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) also reached a marginal superiority (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.56-1.09) for improving mortality. Key Messages: Our findings indicated that EVL + nadolol might be the preferred choice to cirrhotic patients with one previous episode of variceal hemorrhage for preventing rebleeding. EVL + nadolol + sucralfate and beta-blockers + ISMN may be potential alternatives to improve mortality. Further, well-controlled studies are warranted to compare the promising combination therapies.

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.

Risk and Predictors of Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhosis Patients Receiving Primary Prophylaxis With Non-Selective Beta-Blockers

OBJECTIVES

Prior studies have demonstrated the efficacy of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) in preventing first variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. However, little is known about the overall effectiveness of NSBB in routine clinical care.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of cirrhotic patients without prior bleeding who initiated a NSBB (propranolol, nadolol) at any Veterans Administration facility between 2008 and 2013. The primary outcome was variceal bleeding within 12 months. We conducted Cox-proportional hazards analyses to identify demographic, clinical, and NSBB-related (type of NSBB, mean dose, dose change, and heart rate response) factors associated with variceal bleeding.

RESULTS

Of 5,775 patients, 678 (11.7%) developed variceal bleeding. Mean daily dose of NSBB was <40 mg in 58.8%, 18.1% had either upward or downward titration in NSBB dose, and 9.8% had hemodynamic response. Patients who were younger, with ascites, greater medical comorbidity, and higher MELD (Model for end-stage liver disease) scores had a higher risk of variceal bleeding. Patients on a higher daily dose (>60 vs. <40 mg, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-0.81), who had either upward or downward dose titration (adjusted HR 0.69; 95% CI: 0.52-0.90 and 0.64; 95% CI 0.45-0.90, respectively), and those who achieved hemodynamic response (adjusted HR 0.75; 95% CI=0.57-1.0) had lower risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 12% of patients bled while being on NSBB for primary prophylaxis. A higher NSBB dose and dose titration were protective; yet most patients did not have the NSBB dose titrated to the recommended levels. Our data highlight the need for careful monitoring of cirrhotic patients on NSBB.

Nonselective β-Blockers and Survival in Patients With Cirrhosis and Ascites: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs), given to reduce the risk of variceal bleeding, have been associated with increased mortality in patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites in some, but not all, studies. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of NSBBs on all-cause mortality in patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through January 2015, supplemented with a manual search. Trial-specific risk ratios (RRs) were pooled using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 3 randomized control trials and 8 observational studies of propranolol, carvedilol, nadolol, and metoprolol, reporting 1206 deaths among 3145 patients with ascites. The control groups received other interventions to prevent variceal bleeding. NSBB use was not associated with increased all-cause mortality in all patients with ascites (RR, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.35); nonrefractory ascites alone (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.50-1.82), or refractory ascites alone (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.57-1.61). Results were similar in randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Use of NSBBs was not associated with increased mortality at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Overall, the included studies had a medium to high risk of bias, except for 3 clinical trials in which the risk of biased was determined to be low.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of NSBBs was not associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality in patients with cirrhosis and ascites or refractory ascites. Certainty in the available estimates is low; a randomized trial of only patients with ascites is needed to answer this question. This meta-analysis does not support the position that NSBBs routinely be withheld from patients with ascites.

Non-selective beta-blockers may reduce risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) are used in patients with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices. Experimental data suggest that NSBB inhibit angiogenesis and reduce bacterial translocation, which may prevent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We therefore assessed the effect of NSBB on HCC by performing a systematic review with meta-analyses of randomized trials.

METHODS

Electronic and manual searches were combined. Authors were contacted for unpublished data. Included trials assessed NSBB for patients with cirrhosis; the control group could receive any other intervention than NSBB. Fixed and random effects meta-analyses were performed with I(2) as a measure of heterogeneity. Subgroup, sensitivity, regression and sequential analyses were performed to evaluate heterogeneity, bias and the robustness of the results after adjusting for multiple testing.

RESULTS

Twenty-three randomized trials on 2618 patients with cirrhosis were included, of which 12 reported HCC incidence and 23 reported HCC mortality. The mean duration of follow-up was 26 months (range 8-82). In total, 47 of 694 patients randomized to NSBB developed HCC vs 65 of 697 controls (risk difference -0.026; 95% CI-0.052 to -0.001; number needed to treat 38 patients). There was no heterogeneity (I(2) = 7%) or evidence of small study effects (Eggers P = 0.402). The result was not confirmed in sequential analysis, which suggested that 3719 patients were needed to achieve the required information size. NSBB did not reduce HCC-related mortality (RD -0.011; 95% CI -0.040 to 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-selective beta-blockers may prevent HCC in patients with cirrhosis.

Therapies: Drugs, Scopes and Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt--When and How?

Variceal bleeding is the most serious complication of portal hypertension. All cirrhotic patients should be screened endoscopically for varices which are present in about 30% of compensated and 60% of decompensated patients at diagnosis. In patients without varices, endoscopy surveillance should be continued every 2 years. Patients with high-risk varices (moderate or large in size, or with red color signs, or in Child-Pugh C patients) should be treated with a nonselective β-blocker to prevent bleeding (propranolol, nadolol or carvedilol). Endoscopic banding ligation is also effective for the prevention of first bleeding, and it is the first choice in patients with contraindications or intolerance to β-blockers. Acute variceal hemorrhage still has a high mortality rate (around 15%) and requires intensive care management and conservative blood transfusion policy. Treatment is based on the combined use of vasoactive drugs, endoscopic band ligation and prophylactic antibiotics. Failures are best managed by transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Balloon tamponade or specifically designed covered esophageal stents can be used as a bridge to definitive therapy in unstable patients. Early, preemptive TIPS might be the first choice in patients at high risk of failure (Child-Pugh B with active bleeding or Child-Pugh C up to 13 points). Patients surviving a variceal bleeding are at high risk of rebleeding. A combination of β-blockers and endoscopic band ligation is the most effective therapeutic approach. Preliminary data suggest that the addition of simvastatin increases survival in these patients.

Comparative study of endoscopy vs. transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the management of gastric variceal bleeding

Background and Aim: Gastric varices are associated with high mortality. There have been conflicting reports on whether endoscopic treatment with cyanoacrylate or the placement of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is more effective in the treatment of gastric varices. We compared the outcomes of patients treated with cyanoacrylate glue or TIPS for the management of acute gastric variceal bleeding.

Methods: The study was designed as a retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing either TIPS or endoscopic treatment with cyanoacrylate for acute gastric variceal bleeding at our institution from 2001 to 2011. Primary compared to studied between the two treatment modalities were the short-term treatment outcomes, including re-bleeding within 30 days, length of hospital stay and in-hospital mortality. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to assess factors associated with in-hospital mortality.

Results: A total of 169 patients were included in the analysis. The TIPS arm contained 140 patients and the cyanoacrylate arm contained 29 patients. There was no evidence to suggest any significant differences in demographics or disease severity. There were no differences between the TIPS arm and the cyanoacrylate armtwo groups in treatment outcomes including re-bleeding within 30 days (17.4% vs. 17.2%; P = 0.98), median length of stay in the hospital (4.5 days vs. 6.0 days; P = 0.35) or in-hospital mortality (9.0% vs. 11.1%; P = 0.74). In-hospital mortality was evaluated for 149 patients and lower albumin (P = 0.015), higher MELD score (P < 0.001), higher CTP score (P = 0.005) and bleeding (P = 0.008) were all significantly associated with in-hospital death.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that both treatments are equally effective. Cyanoacrylate offers a safe, effective alternative to TIPS for gastric varices, and physician may choose the best therapy for each patient, factoring in the availability of TIPS or cyanoacrylate, the individual patient’s presentation, and cost.

Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding is an important and long-debated topic in the management of patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices. Prophylaxis is recommended for high-risk patients with small esophageal varices (advanced liver disease and/or presence of red wale marks) and those with medium/large varices. Nonselective β-blockers and endoscopic band ligation have been shown to be equally effective in primary prevention of variceal bleeding and are the only currently recommended therapies. Controversy still exists, however, regarding which one of these strategies is preferred. This article reviews the established recommendations and recent advances in the prevention of first esophageal variceal bleeding.

Beta-blockers in portal hypertension: new developments and controversies

There are many studies investigating the role of non-selective beta-blockers in portal hypertension. Satisfactory reduction in portal pressure is possible in a third to half of patients with propranolol and nadolol, although combining these drugs with nitrates may be more effective. Carvedilol is a more potent agent than propranolol in reducing portal pressure, particularly in non-responders, and is better tolerated. All these drugs have been studied in primary and secondary prophylaxis, sometimes in combination with band ligation and/or nitrates. There is some evidence to support combining these agents with band ligation, despite a lack of survival benefit and increased adverse events. Hemodynamic monitoring can help select non-responders who may benefit from additional therapies such as band ligation, as lack of response is associated with worse outcomes. Propranolol should be used with caution in patients with refractory ascites, although the current evidence is not of sufficient quality to justify not using these drugs in such situations. Beta-blockers have been shown to reduce bacterial translocation and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis.

Impact of portal vein thrombosis on the efficacy of endoscopic variceal band ligation

BACKGROUND

Influence of portal vein thrombosis on efficacy of endoscopic variceal banding in patients with cirrhosis or extrahepatic portal vein obstruction has never been evaluated. Aim of the study was to assess influence of thrombosis on rate and time to eradication in cirrhosis and extrahepatic portal vein obstruction undergoing banding, compared to cirrhotic patients without thrombosis.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 235 consecutive patients (192 with cirrhosis without thrombosis, 22 cirrhosis and thrombosis and 21 extrahepatic portal vein obstruction) who underwent banding. Banding was performed every 2-3 weeks until eradication; endoscopic follow-up was performed at 1, 3, 6 months, then annually.

RESULTS

Eradication was achieved in 233 patients. Median time to eradication in cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis vs. cirrhotic patients without thrombosis was 50.9 days (12-440) vs. 43.4 days (13-489.4); log-rank: 0.04; patients with extrahepatic portal vein obstruction vs. cirrhotic patients without thrombosis 63.9 days (31-321.6) vs. 43.4 days (13.0-489.4); log-rank: 0.008. Thrombosis was shown to be the only risk factor for longer time to eradication.

CONCLUSIONS

Portal vein thrombosis per se appears to be the cause of a longer time to achieve eradication of varices but, once eradication is achieved, it does not influence their recurrence.

Rebleeding prophylaxis improves outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. A multicenter case-control study

Outcome of variceal bleeding (VB) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is unknown. We compared outcomes after VB in patients with and without HCC. All patients with HCC and esophageal VB admitted between 2007 and 2010 were included. Follow-up was prolonged until death, transplantation, or June 2011. For each patient with HCC, a patient without HCC matched by age and Child-Pugh class was selected. A total of 292 patients were included, 146 with HCC (Barcelona Classification of Liver Cancer class 0-3 patients, A [in 25], B [in 29], C [in 45], and D [in 41]) and 146 without HCC. No differences were observed regarding previous use of prophylaxis, clinical presentation, endoscopic findings, and initial endoscopic treatment. Five-day failure was similar (25% in HCC versus 18% in non-HCC; P = 0.257). HCC patients had greater 6-week rebleeding rate (16 versus 7%, respectively; P = 0.025) and 6-week mortality (30% versus 15%; P = 0.003). Fewer patients with HCC received secondary prophylaxis after bleeding (77% versus 89%; P = 0.009), and standard combination therapy was used less frequently (58% versus 70%; P = 0.079). Secondary prophylaxis failure was more frequent (50% versus 31%; P = 0.001) and survival significantly shorter in patients with HCC (median survival: 5 months versus greater than 38 months in patients without HCC; P < 0.001). Lack of prophylaxis increased rebleeding and mortality. On multivariate analysis Child-Pugh score, presence of HCC, portal vein thrombosis, and lack of secondary prophylaxis were predictors of death.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HCC and VB have worse prognosis than patients with VB without HCC. Secondary prophylaxis offers survival benefit in HCC patients.

Prevention of upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage: current controversies and clinical guidance

Acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common medical emergency and associated with significant morbidly and mortality. The risk of bleeding from peptic ulceration and oesophagogastric varices can be reduced by appropriate primary and secondary preventative strategies. Helicobacter pylori eradication and risk stratification with appropriate gastroprotection strategies when used with antiplatelet drugs and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective in preventing peptic ulcer bleeding, whilst endoscopic screening and either nonselective beta blockade or endoscopic variceal ligation are effective at reducing the risk of variceal haemorrhage. For secondary prevention of variceal haemorrhage, the combination of beta blockade and endoscopic variceal ligation is more effective. Recent data on the possible interactions of aspirin and NSAIDs, clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and the increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events associated with all nonaspirin cyclo-oxygenase (COX) inhibitors have increased the complexity of choices for preventing peptic ulcer bleeding. Such choices should consider both the GI and cardiovascular risk profiles. In patients with a moderately increased risk of GI bleeding, a NSAID plus a PPI or a COX-2 selective agent alone appear equivalent but for those at highest risk of bleeding (especially those with previous ulcer or haemorrhage) the COX-2 inhibitor plus PPI combination is superior. However naproxen seems the safest NSAID for those at increased cardiovascular risk. Clopidogrel is associated with a significant risk of GI haemorrhage and the most recent data concerning the potential clinical interaction of clopidogrel and PPIs are reassuring. In clopidogrel-treated patients at highest risk of GI bleeding, some form of GI prevention is indicated.

Portal hypertension and gastrointestinal bleeding: Diagnosis, prevention and management

Bleeding from esophageal varices is a life threatening complication of portal hypertension. Primary prevention of bleeding in patients at risk for a first bleeding episode is therefore a major goal. Medical prophylaxis consists of non-selective beta-blockers like propranolol or carvedilol. Variceal endoscopic band ligation is equally effective but procedure related morbidity is a drawback of the method. Therapy of acute bleeding is based on three strategies: vasopressor drugs like terlipressin, antibiotics and endoscopic therapy. In refractory bleeding, self-expandable stents offer an option for bridging to definite treatments like transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Treatment of bleeding from gastric varices depends on vasopressor drugs and on injection of varices with cyanoacrylate. Strategies for primary or secondary prevention are based on non-selective beta-blockers but data from large clinical trials is lacking. Therapy of refractory bleeding relies on shunt-procedures like TIPS. Bleeding from ectopic varices, portal hypertensive gastropathy and gastric antral vascular ectasia-syndrome is less common. Possible medical and endoscopic treatment options are discussed.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Patients with Portal Hypertension

Gastrointestinal bleeding related to portal hypertension is a serious complication in patients with liver cirrhosis. Most patients bleed from esophageal or gastric varices, but bleeding from ectopic varices or portal hypertensive gastropathy is also possible. The management of acute bleeding has changed over the last years. Patients are managed with a combination of endoscopic and pharmacologic treatment. The endoscopic treatment of choice for esophageal variceal bleeding is variceal band ligation. Bleeding from gastric varices is treated by injection with cyanoacrylate. Treatment with vasoactive drugs as well as antibiotic treatment is started before or at the time point of endoscopy. The first-line treatment for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding is nonselective beta blockers. Pharmacologic therapy is recommended for most patients; band ligation is an alternative in patients with contraindications for or intolerability of beta blockers. Treatment options for secondary prophylaxis include variceal band ligation, beta blockers, a combination of nitrates and beta blockers, and combination of band ligation and pharmacologic treatment. A clear superiority of one treatment over the other has not been shown. Bleeding from portal hypertensive gastropathy or ectopic varices is less common. Treatment options include beta blocker therapy, injection therapy, and interventional radiology.

Percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization combined with endoscopic ligation for the prevention of variceal rebleeding

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficiency of percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization (PTVE) plus endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) with EVL alone in the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Cirrhotic patients with recent esophageal variceal bleeding from January 2007 to December 2011 were collected and assigned to PTVE + EVL (N = 41) or EVL (N = 47) groups. We performed chart reviews and prospective follow-up to determine variceal rebleeding, recurrence of varices and survival.

RESULTS

During the follow-up period, recurrence of esophageal varices (EV) occurred in 8 patients (19.5%) in the PTVE + EVL group and 23 (48.9%) in the EVL group (P = 0.004). The time to recurrence of EV was 9.2 ± 2.7 months and 4.9 ± 2.1 months, respectively. Three patients (7.3%) in the PTVE + EVL group and 12 (25.5%) in the EVL group experienced rebleeding from all sources (P = 0.023). One patient (2.4%) in the PTVE + EVL group and 7 (14.9%) in the EVL group experienced rebleeding from EV (P = 0.024). Multivariate Cox analysis indicated that the treatment method was the only predictor of rebleeding. There was no significant difference in the survival rate between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

With adequate and permanent obliteration of EV and their feeding veins, the combination of PTVE with cyanoacrylate and EVL is more effective than EVL alone in the prevention and treatment of EV recurrence and rebleeding.

Variceal hemorrhage: Saudi tertiary center experience of clinical presentations, complications and mortality

AIM

To determine the clinical presentation, underlying etiology and short- and long-term outcomes of acute variceal bleeding (AVB).

METHODS

A retrospective descriptive cohort study of cirrhotic patients with AVB who were admitted to King Abdul Aziz University Hospital between January 2005 and December 2009. We obtained demographic data for all patients. For each patient we also obtained the clinical data at presentation; cause of liver cirrhosis, bleeding presentation (hematemesis and/or melena), presence of ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and renal impairment (RI) or hepatorenal syndrome. We carried out complete blood count, prothrombin time evaluation, and liver function tests. We also report all episodes of re-bleeding after the first episode of AVB, both during the initial admission and after discharge. We recorded the length of stay for each patient and thereby calculated the mean duration of stay for all patients. The length of follow-up after the first AVB and the outcome for each patient at the end of the study period were recorded. Causes of mortality either related to liver disease or non-liver disease cause were determined.

RESULTS

A 125 patients were enrolled in the study. The number of episodes of AVB for each patients varied between 1 and 10. Survival from the first attack of AVB to death was 20.38 mo (SD 30.86), while the length of follow-up for the living patients was 53.58 mo (SD 24.94). Total number of AVB admissions was 241. Chronic hepatitis C, the commonest underlying etiology for liver disease, was present in 46 (36.8%) patients. Only 35 (28%) patients had received a primary prophylactic β-blocker before the first bleeding episode. The mean hemoglobin level at the time of admission was 8.59 g/dL (SD 2.53). Most patients had Child-Pugh Class C 41 (32.8%) or Class B 72 (57.6%) disease. Hematemesis was the predominant symptom and was found in 119 (95.2%) patients, followed by melena in 75 (60.0%) patients. Ascites of variable extent was documented in 93 (74.4%) patients. We identified hepatic encephalopathy in 31 (28.8%) patients and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in 17 (13.6%). Bleeding gastric varices was the cause of AVB in 2 patients. AVB was associated with shock in 22 patients, 13 of whom (59.1%) had Child-Pugh class C disease. RI was noted in 19 (46.3%) of 41 patients in Child-Pugh class C and 14 (19.4%) of 72 patients in Child-Pugh class B. None of the patients with Child-Pugh class A disease had RI. Emergency endoscopy was effective in controlling the bleeding, although the re-bleeding rate was still high, 12 (9.6%) during the same admission and 55 (44%) after discharge. The re-bleeding rate was higher in patients with ascites, occurring in 40/55 (72.2%). The length of hospital stay was 1-54 d with a mean of 8.7 d. Three patients had emergency surgery due to failure of endoscopic treatment and balloon tamponade. The overall long term mortality was 65%. Survival from the first attack of AVB to death was 20.38 ± 30.86 mo, while the length of follow-up for the living patients was 53.58 ± 24.94 mo. Patients with Child-Pugh score C had a higher risk of liver disease-related mortality (67.6%). RI (developed during admission) was the main factor that was associated with mortality (P = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients with liver disease who present at the emergency unit for AVB are at an advanced stage of the disease. The outcome is poorer for patients who develop RI during hospitalization.

Banding ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prevention in oesophageal varices in adults

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are used as a first-line treatment for primary prevention in patients with medium- to high-risk oesophageal varices. The effect of non-selective beta-blockers on mortality is debated and many patients experience adverse events. Trials on banding ligation versus non-selective beta-blockers for patients with oesophageal varices and no history of bleeding have reached equivocal results.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of banding ligation versus non-selective beta-blockers as primary prevention in adult patients with endoscopically verified oesophageal varices that have never bled, irrespective of the underlying liver disease (cirrhosis or other cause).

SEARCH METHODS

In Febuary 2012, electronic searches (the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded) and manual searches (including scanning of reference lists in relevant articles and conference proceedings) were performed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials were included irrespective of publication status, blinding, and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently extracted data. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. Intention-to-treat random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses were performed. Results were presented as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with I(2) statistic values as a measure of intertrial heterogeneity. Subgroup, sensitivity, regression, and trial sequential analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the overall results, risks of bias, sources of intertrial heterogeneity, and risks of random errors.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen randomised trials on banding ligation versus non-selective beta-blockers for primary prevention in oesophageal varices were included. Most trials specified that only patients with large or high-risk oesophageal varices were included. Bias control was unclear in most trials. In total, 176 of 731 (24%) of the patients randomised to banding ligation and 177 of 773 (23%) of patients randomised to non-selective beta-blockers died. The difference was not statistically significant in a random-effects meta-analysis (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.30; I(2) = 0%). There was no evidence of bias or small study effects in regression analysis (Egger's test P = 0.997). Trial sequential analysis showed that the heterogeneity-adjusted low-bias trial relative risk estimate required an information size of 3211 patients, that none of the interventions showed superiority, and that the limits of futility have not been reached. When all trials were included, banding ligation reduced upper gastrointestinal bleeding and variceal bleeding compared with non-selective beta-blockers (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91; I(2) = 19% and RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.98; I(2) = 31% respectively). The beneficial effect of banding ligation on bleeding was not confirmed in subgroup analyses of trials with adequate randomisation or full paper articles. Bleeding-related mortality was not different in the two intervention arms (29/567 (5.1%) versus 37/585 (6.3%); RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.39; I(2) = 0%). Both interventions were associated with adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found a beneficial effect of banding ligation on primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patient with oesophageal varices. The effect on bleeding did not reduce mortality. Additional evidence is needed to determine whether our results reflect that non-selective beta-blockers have other beneficial effects than on bleeding.

Efficacy of transient elastography in screening for large esophageal varices in patients with suspicious or proven liver cirrhosis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the liver stiffness measurement (LSM) using transient elastography (TE) to predict the risk of esophageal varices (EVs) in Chinese patients.

METHODS

In total, 46 patients with suspicious or proven liver cirrhosis underwent TE and liver biopsy. All participants were endoscopically screened for the presence of EVs and large EVs by two endoscopists who were blinded to the LSM status. Large EVs were defined as more than 5 mm in diameter. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for both TE and the platelet count/spleen diameter (PC/SD) ratio in predicting the presence of EVs or large EVs were calculated.

RESULTS

Of the 46 patients, 30 (65%) had EVs including 19 (41%) with large EVs. The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of LSM was 0.85 for the presence of EVs and 0.83 for large EVs, respectively. The cut-off values of LSM were ≥13.4 kPa for the presence of EVs and ≥14.6 kPa for large EVs. Notably, the AUROC of the PC/SD ratio was 0.92 for the presence of EVs but only 0.69 for large EVs.

CONCLUSION

LSM using TE can predict the presence of EVs or large EVs in Chinese patients with suspicious or proven cirrhosis and may identify patients who require endoscopic surveillance.

Meta-analysis: beta-blockers versus banding ligation for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding

AIM

To perform an updated meta-analysis comparing β-blockers (BB) with endoscopic variceal banding ligation (EVBL) in the primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were identified through electronic databases, article reference lists and conference proceedings. Analysis was performed using both fixed-effect and random-effect models. Heterogeneity and publication bias were systematically taken into account. Main outcomes were variceal bleeding rates and all-cause mortality, calculated overall and at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months.

RESULTS

19 randomized controlled trials were analyzed including a total of 1,483 patients. Overall bleeding rates were significantly lower for the EVBL group: odds ratio (OR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.55-2.73], p < 0.0001, without evidence of publication bias. Bleeding rates were also significantly lower at 18 months (OR 2.20, 95% CI [1.04-4.60], P = 0.04), but publication bias was detected. When only high quality trials were taken into account, results for bleeding rates were no longer significant. No significant difference was found for either bleeding-related mortality or for all-cause mortality overall or at 6, 12, 18 or 24 months. BB were associated with more frequent severe adverse events (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.60-4.40, P < 0.0001) whereas fatal adverse events were more frequent with EVBL (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-0.99, P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

EVBL appears to be superior to BB in preventing the first variceal bleed, although this finding may be biased as it was not confirmed by high quality trials. No difference was found for mortality. Current evidence is insufficient to recommend EVBL over BB as first-line therapy.

Care of the liver transplant candidate

Care of the liver transplant candidate is one of the most challenging, yet rewarding aspects of hepatology. Anticipation and intervention for the major complications of advanced liver disease increase the likelihood of survival until transplant.

Risk factors for predicting early variceal rebleeding after endoscopic variceal ligation

AIM: To analyze the clinical risk factors for early variceal rebleeding after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL).

METHODS: 342 cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices who received elective EVL to prevent bleeding or rebleeding at our endoscopy center between January 2005 and July 2010. were included in this study. The early rebleeding cases after EVL were confirmed by clinical signs or endoscopy. A case-control study was performed comparing the patients presenting with early rebleeding with those without this complication.

RESULTS: The incidence of early rebleeding after EVL was 7.60%, and the morbidity of rebleeding was 26.9%. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that four variables were independent risk factors for early rebleeding: moderate to excessive ascites [odds ratio (OR) 62.83, 95% CI: 9.39-420.56, P < 0.001], the number of bands placed (OR 17.36, 95% CI: 4.00-75.34, P < 0.001), the extent of varices (OR 15.41, 95% CI: 2.84-83.52, P = 0.002) and prothrombin time (PT) > 18 s (OR 11.35, 95% CI: 1.93-66.70, P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION: The early rebleeding rate after EVL is mainly affected by the volume of ascites, number of rubber bands used to ligate, severity of varices and prolonged PT. Effective measures for prevention and treatment should be adopted before and after EVL.

Endoscopic band ligation versus pharmacological therapy for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a meta-analysis of published, full-length, randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) versus pharmacological therapy for the primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Eighteen randomized clinical trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were further pooled into a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Among 1023 patients in 12 trials comparing EBL with beta-blockers for primary prevention, there was no significant difference in gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.79 [95% CI 0.61 to 1.02]), all-cause deaths (RR 1.06 [95% CI 0.86 to 1.30]) or bleeding-related deaths (RR 0.66 [95% CI 0.38 to 1.16]). There was a reduced trend toward significance in variceal bleeding with EBL compared with betablockers (RR 0.72 [95% CI 0.54 to 0.96]). However, variceal bleeding was not significantly different between the two groups in high-quality trials (RR 0.84 [95% CI 0.60 to 1.17]). Among 687 patients from six trials comparing EBL with beta-blockers plus isosorbide mononitrate for secondary prevention, there was no effect on either gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.95 [95% CI 0.65 to 1.40]) or variceal bleeding (RR 0.89 [95% CI 0.53 to 1.49]). The risk for all-cause deaths in the EBL group was significantly higher than in the medical group (RR 1.25 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.55]); however, the rate of bleeding related deaths was unaffected (RR 1.16 [95% CI 0.68 to 1.97]).

CONCLUSIONS

Both EBL and beta-blockers may be considered first-line treatments to prevent first variceal bleeding, whereas betablockers plus isosorbide mononitrate may be the best choice for the prevention of rebleeding.

Variceal band ligation in the prevention of variceal bleeding: a multicenter trial

BACKGROUND/AIM

Variceal bleeding is a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension with a high probability of recurrence. Treatment to prevent first bleeding or rebleeding is mandatory. The study has been aimed at investigating the effectiveness of endoscopic band ligation in preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with portal hypertension and to establish the clinical outcome of patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed in a multicenter trial, the efficacy and side effects of endoscopic band ligation for the primary and secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding. We assigned 603 patients with portal hypertension who were hospitalized to receive treatment with endoscopic ligation. Sessions of ligation were repeated every two to three weeks until the varices were eradicated. The primary end point was recurrent bleeding.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 32 months. A total of 126 patients had recurrent bleeding. All episodes were related to portal hypertension and 79 to recurrent variceal bleeding. There were major complications in 51 patients (30 had bleeding esophageal ulcers). Seventy-eight patients died, 26 deaths were related to variceal bleeding and 1 to bleeding esophageal ulcers.

CONCLUSIONS

A great improvement in the prevention of variceal bleeding has emerged over the last years. However, further therapeutic options that combine higher efficacy, better tolerance and fewer side effects are needed.

Management of varices in cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

Acute variceal bleeding is a medical emergency and one of the main causes of mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Timely and effective treatment of the acute bleeding episode results in increased survival, and appropriate prophylactic treatment can prevent bleeding or rebleeding from varices.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss the prevention of development and growth of varices, the primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding, the treatment of acute bleeding, and the management of gastric varices. We systematically reviewed studies, without time limits, identified through Medline and searches of reference lists, and provide an overview of the evidence underlying the -treatment options in the management of varices in cirrhosis.

EXPERT OPINION

The management of variceal hemorrhage relies on nonspecific interventions (e.g., adequate fluid resuscitation, airway protection) and on specific interventions. These are routine prophylactic antibiotics, vasoactive drugs and endoscopic treatment. Procedures such as the placement of a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube or a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) can be lifesaving. The primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding is based on nonselective beta-blockers and endoscopy, even though TIPS or, less frequently, surgery have a role in selected cases.

Application of endoscopy in improving survival of cirrhotic patients with acute variceal hemorrhage

Playing a central role in the modern multidisciplinary management of acute gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage, endoscopy is essential to stratify patient at risk, control active hemorrhage, and prevent first as well as recurrent bleeding. Before endoscopic procedure, antibiotic prophylaxis along with vasoactive medication is now routine practice. Intravenous erythromycin effectively cleanses stomach and may improve the quality of endoscopy. The timing of endoscopy should be on an urgent basis as delay for more than 15 hours after presentation is associated with mortality. Active variceal bleeding on endoscopy in a patient with hepatic decompensation heralds poor prognosis and mandates consideration of aggressive strategy with early portosystemic shunting. Band ligation has become the preferred modality to control and prevent bleeding from esophageal varices, although occasionally sclerotherapy may still be used to achieve hemostasis. Addition of pharmacotherapy with nonselective beta blockade to endoscopic ligation has become the current standard of care in the setting of secondary prophylaxis but remains controversial with inconsistent data for the purpose of primary prophylaxis. Gastric varices extending from esophagus may be treated like esophageal varices, whereas variceal obliteration by tissue glue is the endoscopic therapy of choice to control and prevent bleeding from fundic and isolated gastric varices.

Oesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients: from variceal screening to primary prophylaxis of the first oesophageal variceal bleeding

Bleeding from oesophageal varices is still a lethal complication in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Approximately 5-10% of patients with cirrhosis will develop oesophageal varices per year, and about 25-30% of cirrhotic patients with oesophageal varices and without previous variceal haemorrhage will bleed from ruptured varices. To date, data on preventing the formation/growth of oesophageal varices (preprimary prophylaxis) are conflicting, with insufficient evidence to use β-blockers. There is evidence for the need for primary prophylaxis, and both β-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation have shown the same efficacy in preventing first bleeding, but which one to prefer is still controversial. The present article reviews the established and potential therapeutic strategies for preventing the development and rupture of oesophageal varices.

Use of ß-blocker therapy to prevent primary bleeding of esophageal varices

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to educate nurse practitioners about the pathophysiology surrounding the development of portal hypertension and the effective use of nonselective ß-blockers to prevent primary bleeding and decrease the mortality risk.

Data sources: The articles included were retrieved via ISI Web of Science using the years 2004–2009 and key words cirrhosis, portal hypertension, esophageal varices, and beta-blockers. This information included scholarly books, journal reviews, retrospective chart reviews, and prospective randomized studies.

Conclusions: Cirrhosis is the leading cause of portal hypertension in Europe and North America. Esophageal varices are a result of the portosystemic collaterals the body develops to decompress the portal system. Hemorrhage from esophageal varices is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Prevention of a primary bleed is the goal of therapy and is accomplished with nonselective ß-blockers.

Implications for practice: Very few patients with portal hypertension and esophageal varices are on ß-blockers. Use of nonselective ß-blockers has been found to lower portal pressure and decreases the risk of bleeding from esophageal varices and therefore decreases mortality. Patients unable to use ß-blockers can undergo endoscopic variceal ligation as an alternate method to reduce risk of bleeding.

[Prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding]

Esophageal varices(EV) are present in 40% and 60% of Child-Pugh A and C patients, respectively when cirrhosis is diagnosed. EV bleeding is a life-threatening complication of liver cirrhosis with a high probability of recurrence. Treatment to prevent first EV bleeding or rebleeding is mandatory. In small EV with high risk of bleeding, nonselective β-blockers should be used for the prevention of first variceal bleeding. For medium to large EV, nonselective β-blockers or endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) may be recommended to high risk varices. But, nonselective β-blockers are the first treatment option to non-high risk varices and EVL is an alternative when nonselective β-blockers are contraindicated or not tolerated. For the prevention of rebleeding, a combination of nonselective β-blockers and EVL may be the best option. A great improvement in the prevention of variceal bleeding has emerged over the last years. However, further therapeutic options that combine higher efficacy, better tolerance and fewer side effects are needed.

A specialized, nurse-run titration clinic: a feasible option for optimizing beta-blockade in non-clinical trial patients

OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials of variceal bleeding prophylaxis demonstrate beta-blocker (BB) withdrawal rates of about 15%. We aimed to evaluate the dosing and tolerance of BBs achievable in a specialized, nurse-run BB titration clinic with non-trial participants.

METHODS

We analyzed prospectively collected data from 154 patients seen at the clinic between 2004 and 2009. BBs were titrated to patient tolerance. The therapeutic target (TT) was defined as a heart rate between 50 and 60 beats per minute (bpm) on the last clinic visit and/or maximum doses of BBs (propranolol 320 mg, nadolol 160 mg).

RESULTS

Eight of 154 patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 146. Fifty-five percent were male (mean age, 55; mean model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, 9), with 74% Child-Pugh class A. Median end-of-study doses were 120 mg propranolol and 60 mg nadolol. Seventy-nine percent of patients reached the TT before they were discharged from the clinic. Side effects were experienced by 72% of patients. Thirty-four percent had no need for dose reduction; 17% required transient dose reduction, 16% permanent dose reduction, and 5% BB discontinuation. Among patients requiring permanent dose reduction or discontinuation, the top reasons were fatigue and orthostatic symptoms. Independent predictors of achieving higher doses of BB were the absence of side effects, younger age, and diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that a specialized BB titration clinic attains low withdrawal rates and higher doses, similar to those in clinical trials. Nurse-led clinics can contribute to successful titration of these important medications.