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

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.

Review article: controversies surrounding the use of carvedilol and other beta blockers in the management of portal hypertension and cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Advanced chronic liver disease is an increasing cause of premature morbidity and mortality in the UK. Portal hypertension is the primary driver of decompensation, including the development of ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and variceal haemorrhage. Non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) reduce portal pressure and are well established in the prevention of variceal haemorrhage. Carvedilol, a newer NSBB, is more effective at reducing portal pressure due to additional α-adrenergic blockade and has additional anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic effects.

AIM

To summarise the available evidence on the use of beta blockers, specifically carvedilol, in cirrhosis, focussing on when and why to start METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed for relevant publications.

RESULTS

International guidelines advise the use of NSBB in primary prophylaxis against variceal haemorrhage in those with high-risk varices, with substantial evidence of efficacy comparable with endoscopic band ligation (EBL). NSBB are also well established in secondary prophylaxis, in combination with EBL. More controversial is their use in patients without large varices, but with clinically significant portal hypertension. However, there is gathering evidence that NSBB, particularly carvedilol, reduce the risk of decompensation and improve survival. While caution is advised in patients with advanced cirrhosis and refractory ascites, recent evidence suggests that NSBB can continue to be used safely, and that premature discontinuation may be detrimental.

CONCLUSIONS

With increasing evidence of benefit independent of variceal bleeding, namely retardation of decompensation and improvement in survival, it is time to consider whether carvedilol should be offered to all patients with advanced chronic liver disease.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD; due to viruses, alcohol, and/or nonobese [BMI < 30 kg/m²] nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) and clinically significant portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] > 10 mmHg and/or liver stiffness by transient elastography > 25 kPa) should receive, if no contraindications, nonselective beta blocker (NSBB) therapy (preferably carvedilol) to prevent the development of variceal bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in those patients unable to receive NSBB therapy with a screening upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy that demonstrates high risk esophageal varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the endoscopic prophylactic treatment of choice. EBL should be repeated every 2-4 weeks until variceal eradication is achieved. Thereafter, surveillance EGD should be performed every 3-6 months in the first year following eradication.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage (UGIH) and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 70 g/L prompting RBC transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin of 70-90 g/L is desired.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends that patients with ACLD presenting with suspected acute variceal bleeding be risk stratified according to the Child-Pugh score and MELD score, and by documentation of active/inactive bleeding at the time of upper GI endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5 : ESGE recommends the vasoactive agents terlipressin, octreotide, or somatostatin be initiated at the time of presentation in patients with suspected acute variceal bleeding and be continued for a duration of up to 5 days.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends antibiotic prophylaxis using ceftriaxone 1 g/day for up to 7 days for all patients with ACLD presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage, or in accordance with local antibiotic resistance and patient allergies.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends, in the absence of contraindications, intravenous erythromycin 250 mg be given 30-120 minutes prior to upper GI endoscopy in patients with suspected acute variceal hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends that, in patients with suspected variceal hemorrhage, endoscopic evaluation should take place within 12 hours from the time of patient presentation provided the patient has been hemodynamically resuscitated.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 : ESGE recommends EBL for the treatment of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH).Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 : ESGE recommends that, in patients at high risk for recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding following successful endoscopic hemostasis (Child-Pugh C  ≤ 13 or Child-Pugh B > 7 with active EVH at the time of endoscopy despite vasoactive agents, or HVPG > 20 mmHg), pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) within 72 hours (preferably within 24 hours) must be considered.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 11 : ESGE recommends that, for persistent esophageal variceal bleeding despite vasoactive pharmacological and endoscopic hemostasis therapy, urgent rescue TIPS should be considered (where available).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 12 : ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for acute gastric (cardiofundal) variceal (GOV2, IGV1) hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 13: ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or EBL in patients with GOV1-specific bleeding.Strong recommendations, moderate quality evidence. 14: ESGE suggests urgent rescue TIPS or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for gastric variceal bleeding when there is a failure of endoscopic hemostasis or early recurrent bleeding.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 15: ESGE recommends that patients who have undergone EBL for acute EVH should be scheduled for follow-up EBLs at 1- to 4-weekly intervals to eradicate esophageal varices (secondary prophylaxis).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 16: ESGE recommends the use of NSBBs (propranolol or carvedilol) in combination with endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis in EVH in patients with ACLD.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

Review article: epidemiology, pathogenesis and management of liver disease in adults with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis-related liver disease (CFLD) is the leading cause of death in cystic fibrosis (CF), after pulmonary disease. To improve identification and management of this condition requires an understanding of the underlying disease mechanism.

AIMS

This review summarises the current understanding of CFLD epidemiology, pathology, diagnosis and management.

METHODS

Relevant reports on cystic fibrosis liver disease were identified using a literature search and summarised.

RESULTS

CFLD is a heterogeneous condition with several different co-existent pathologies, including environmental and genetic factors. Incidence of clinically significant CFLD continues at a linear rate into early adulthood and has been described in up to 25% of CF patients. Diagnosis strategies lack precision and patient risk stratification needs to look beyond Childs-Pugh scoring. Efficacious therapies are lacking and, at present, newer modulator therapies lack data in CFLD and carry an increased risk of hepatotoxicity. Outcomes of liver transplant are comparable to non-CF transplant indications.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of CFLD increases with age and hence is increasingly important to adult patients with CF. Effective therapies are lacking. For progress to be made a better understanding of pathogenesis and disease detection are required.

A multicenter analysis of the role of prophylactic transfusion of blood products in patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices undergoing endoscopic band ligation

Background & Aims

Prophylactic administration of platelets and fresh frozen plasma (FFP) has been recommended in patients with cirrhosis with low platelets and/or prolonged international normalized ratio (INR) without scientific evidence to support this practice. In this analysis, we evaluated the use of prophylactic administration of blood products in outpatients with cirrhosis undergoing endoscopic band ligation (EBL).

Methods

This is a multicenter retrospective analysis of consecutive EBL procedures in patients with cirrhosis at 4 hospitals in Spain from 01/2010-01/2017. FFP and/or platelet transfusion were given at the discretion of the physician if INR was >1.5 and/or platelet count <50x10⁹/L. Patient demographics, endoscopic findings, bleeding events after EBL, and the use of prophylactic FFP or platelets were recorded.

Results

A total of 536 patients underwent 1,472 EBL procedures: 72% male; main etiology HCV and alcohol (72%); median MELD score 11; Child-Pugh A/B/C (59/33/8%). EBL procedures were performed for primary (51%) or secondary (49%) prophylaxis. A median of 2 procedures per patient were performed.^1-4 FFP and/or platelets were administered in 41 patients (7.6%). The prophylactic transfusion protocol was followed in 16% and 28% of procedures with high INR and/or low platelets, respectively. Post-EBL bleeding occurred in 26 out of 536 patients (4.8%) and in 33 out of 1,472 procedures (2.2%). Bleeding was due to post-EBL ulcers in 21 patients and due to band dislodgment in 5. In 6 patients, bleeding occurred within 24 hours and in the remaining patients it occurred within 2 weeks after EBL. In those that bled, 7 met criteria for transfusion (2 for FFP and 5 for platelets), of whom only 1 received FFP and 4 received platelets; the remaining 19 patients did not meet criteria for transfusion. There was no association between INR or platelet count and bleeding events. Univariate and multivariate analysis revealed that Child-Pugh and MELD scores were risk factors for post-EBL bleeding.

Conclusions

The incidence of post-EBL bleeding is low and is associated with advanced liver disease. Post-EBL bleeding was not related to baseline INR/platelet count and most outpatients with post-EBL bleeding did not meet criteria for prophylactic transfusion.

Lay summary

Patients with chronic liver disease or cirrhosis and enlarged veins (varices) of the esophagus that can potentially bleed commonly need an endoscopy to treat these varices with elastic rubber bands (endoscopic band ligation). Some patients have low platelet counts or prolonged coagulation tests. This analysis of 4 centers evaluated the use of prophylactic administration of blood products in outpatients with cirrhosis undergoing endoscopic band ligation. The results showed that bleeding after band ligation is uncommon and that if bleeding occurs it does not seem to be related with coagulation tests or the administration of blood products to prevent bleeding after band ligation of esophageal varices.

•

Multicenter analysis of prophylactic administration of blood products in 536 outpatients with cirrhosis undergoing EBL.

•

The prophylactic transfusion protocol was only followed in 16% and 28% of procedures with high INR and/or low platelets, respectively.

•

Post EBL-bleeding occurred in 26 patients – 4.8% of patients and in 2.2% of procedures.

•

Patients that bled had higher Child-Pugh and MELD scores compared to those that did not bleed.

•

There was no clear relationship between post-EBL bleeding and the baseline INR/platelet count before the procedure.

The prognosis and incidence of hepatic encephalopathy of patients with liver cirrhosis treated with proton pump inhibitors: A multicenter retrospective study in Japan

Gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy (HE), and hepatocarcinogenesis are associated with the prognosis of patients with liver cirrhosis (LC). Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been used to prevent bleeding, however the effects of PPIs on overall survival have not yet been elucidated. Therefore, this multicenter retrospective study aimed to assess the effect of PPI on the prognosis and HE occurrence of the patients with liver cirrhosis in Japan.A total of 456 patients diagnosed with LC at the 4 institutes during the study period (2010-2014) were assessed. PPI-treated and non-treated patients were compared using propensity score matching analysis. Primary and secondary endpoints of the study were set as the occurrence of HE and overall survival, respectively.A comparison of all cases showed a significantly poorer hepatic reserve function in the PPI-treated patients. The propensity-score matching analysis was performed and 120 PPI-treated patients were 1:1 matched with non-treated patients. The analysis revealed a higher incidence of HE in the PPI-treated than in the non-treated patients (P = .032; hazard ratio [HR], 2.162; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.066-4.176), but the prognosis of PPI-treated patients was no worse than that of non-treated patients (P = .676; HR, 1.101; 95% CI, 0.702-1.726).This retrospective study showed that PPI administration for the patients with liver cirrhosis may partly be related to the increased incidence of HE but not worsen the patient prognosis.

Clinical algorithms for the prevention of variceal bleeding and rebleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis

Portal hypertension (PH), a common complication of liver cirrhosis, results in development of esophageal varices. When esophageal varices rupture, they cause significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding with mortality rates up to 20% despite state-of-the-art treatment. Thus, prophylactic measures are of utmost importance to improve outcomes of patients with PH. Several high-quality studies have demonstrated that non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) are effective for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. In secondary prophylaxis, a combination of NSBB + EBL should be routinely used. Once esophageal varices develop and variceal bleeding occurs, standardized treatment algorithms should be followed to minimize bleeding-associated mortality. Special attention should be paid to avoidance of overtransfusion, early initiation of vasoconstrictive therapy, prophylactic antibiotics and early endoscopic therapy. Pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt should be used in all Child C10-C13 patients experiencing variceal bleeding, and potentially in Child B patients with active bleeding at endoscopy. The use of carvedilol, safety of NSBBs in advanced cirrhosis (i.e. with refractory ascites) and assessment of hepatic venous pressure gradient response to NSBB is discussed. In the present review, we give an overview on the rationale behind the latest guidelines and summarize key papers that have led to significant advances in the field.

Surgical management of super-super obesity with grade III esophageal varices and liver cirrhosis: The ultimate challenge

The risk of complications after bariatric surgery is high in morbidly obese patients suffering from liver cirrhosis along with moderate to severe portal hypertension. Esophageal varices are even considered as a contraindication for bariatric surgery by many surgeons. We report the case of a 40-year-old gentleman with a body mass index of 65.3 kg/m² , with multiple comorbidities including type 2 diabetes mellitus, severe obstructive sleep apnea. On evaluation, he had Child-Pugh A liver cirrhosis with portal hypertension along with grade III esophageal varices and splenomegaly. After adequate optimization, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was performed. The patient is doing well at a follow up of 12 months with an adequate weight loss and resolution of comorbidities. Sleeve gastrectomy can be performed in a morbidly obese Child-Pugh A cirrhotic patient with portal hypertension and esophageal varices with proper counseling regarding more than usual risk for morbidity and mortality.

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.

Managing liver cirrhotic complications: Overview of esophageal and gastric varices

Managing liver cirrhosis in clinical practice is still a challenging problem as its progression is associated with serious complications, such as variceal bleeding that may increase mortality. Portal hypertension (PH) is the main key for the development of liver cirrhosis complications. Portal pressure above 10 mmHg, termed as clinically significant portal hypertension, is associated with formation of varices; meanwhile, portal pressure above 12 mmHg is associated with variceal bleeding. Hepatic vein pressure gradient measurement and esophagogastroduodenoscopy remain the gold standard for assessing portal pressure and detecting varices. Recently, non-invasive methods have been studied for evaluation of portal pressure and varices detection in liver cirrhotic patients. Various guidelines have been published for clinicians’ guidance in the management of esophagogastric varices which aims to prevent development of varices, acute variceal bleeding, and variceal rebleeding. This writing provides a comprehensive review on development of PH and varices in liver cirrhosis patients and its management based on current international guidelines and real experience in Indonesia.

Interventions for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis is an autosomal recessive inherited defect in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene resulting in abnormal regulation of salt and water movement across the membranes. In the liver this leads to focal biliary fibrosis resulting in progressive portal hypertension and end-stage liver disease in some individuals. This can be asymptomatic, but may lead to splenomegaly and hypersplenism, development of varices and variceal bleeding, and ascites; it has negative impact on overall nutritional status and respiratory function in this population. Prognosis is poor once significant portal hypertension is established. The role and outcome of various interventions for managing advanced liver disease (non-malignant end stage disease) in people with cystic fibrosis is currently unidentified. This is an updated version of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To review and assess the efficacy of currently available treatment options for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in children and adults with cystic fibrosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 19 November 2019. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and online trials registries. Date of last search: 01 January 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any published and unpublished randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials of advanced liver disease in cystic fibrosis with cirrhosis or liver failure, portal hypertension or variceal bleeding (or both).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors independently examined titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant trials, but none were eligible for inclusion in this review.

MAIN RESULTS

A comprehensive search of the literature did not identify any published eligible randomised controlled trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In order to develop the best source of evidence, there is a need to undertake randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in adults and children with cystic fibrosis.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of carvedilol versus variceal band ligation in primary prevention of variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis (CALIBRE trial)

Introduction

Liver cirrhosis is the fifth largest cause of adult deaths, and a major complication, variceal bleeding is associated with a 1-year mortality of 40%. There is uncertainty on the first-line therapy for prevention of variceal bleeding owing to a lack of adequately powered trials comparing non-selective beta blockers, in particular carvedilol, with variceal band ligation.

Methods and analysis

CALIBRE is a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled, open-label trial with an internal pilot. The two interventions are carvedilol 12.5 mg od or variceal band ligation (VBL). Patients with liver cirrhosis and medium to large oesophageal varices that have never bled are eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome is any variceal bleeding within 1 year of randomisation. Secondary endpoints include time to variceal bleed, mortality, transplant-free survival, adverse events, complications of cirrhosis, health-related quality of life, use of healthcare resources, patient preference and use of alternative or crossover therapies. The sample size is 2630 patients over a 4-year recruitment period, across 66 hospitals in the UK.

Ethics and dissemination

The study has been approved by a National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (REC) (reference number 18/NE/0296). The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. Participants will be informed via a link to a preview of the publication. A lay summary will also be provided via email or posted to participants prior to publication (ISRCTN reference number: 73887615).

Non-Invasive Prediction of High-Risk Varices in Patients with Primary Biliary Cholangitis and Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

BACKGROUND

Baveno-VI guidelines recommend that patients with compensated cirrhosis with liver stiffness by transient elastography (LSM-TE) <20 kPa and platelets >150,000/mm(3) do not need an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to screen for varices, since the risk of having varices needing treatment (VNT) is <5%. It remains uncertain if this tool can be used in patients with cholestatic liver diseases (ChLDs): primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). These patients may have a pre-sinusoidal component of portal hypertension that could affect the performance of this rule. In this study we evaluated the performance of Baveno-VI, expanded Baveno-VI (LSM-TE <25 kPa and platelets >110,000/mm(3)), and other criteria in predicting the absence of VNT.

METHODS

This was a multicenter cross-sectional study in four referral hospitals. We retrospectively analyzed data from 227 patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) due to PBC (n = 147) and PSC (n = 80) that had paired EGD and LSM-TE. We calculated false negative rate (FNR) and number of saved endoscopies for each prediction rule.

RESULTS

Prevalence of VNT was 13%. Baveno-VI criteria had a 0% FNR in PBC and PSC, saving 39 and 30% of EGDs, respectively. In PBC the other LSM-TE-based criteria resulted in FNRs >5%. In PSC the expanded Baveno criteria had an adequate performance. In both conditions LSM-TE-independent criteria resulted in an acceptable FNR but saved less EGDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Baveno-VI criteria can be applied in patients with cACLD due to ChLDs, which would result in saving 30-40% of EGDs. Expanded criteria in PBC would lead to FNRs >5%.

Betablockers do not increase efficacy of band ligation in primary prophylaxis but they improve survival in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is used for primary (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) of variceal bleeding. Current guidelines recommend combined use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and EBL for SP, while in PP either NSBB or EBL should be used.

AIM

To assess (re-)bleeding rates and mortality in cirrhotic patients receiving EBL for PP or SP for variceal bleeding.

METHODS

(Re-)bleeding rates and mortality were retrospectively assessed with and without concomitant NSBB therapy after first EBL in PP and SP.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and sixty-six patients with oesophageal varices underwent EBL from 01/2005 to 06/2015. Among the 284 patients undergoing EBL for PP, n = 101 (35.6%) received EBL only, while n = 180 (63.4%) received EBL + NSBBs. In 482 patients on SP, n = 163 (33.8%) received EBL only, while n = 299 (62%) received EBL + NSBBs. In PP, concomitant NSBB therapy neither decreased bleeding rates (log-rank: P = 0.353) nor mortality (log-rank: P = 0.497) as compared to EBL alone. In SP, similar re-bleeding rates were documented in EBL + NSBB vs EBL alone (log-rank: P = 0.247). However, EBL + NSBB resulted in a significantly lower mortality rate (log-rank: P<0.001). A decreased risk of death with EBL + NSBB in SP (hazard ratio, HR: 0.50; P<0.001) but not of rebleeding, transplantation or further decompensation was confirmed by competing risk analysis. Overall NSBB intake reduced 6-months mortality (HR: 0.53, P = 0.008) in SP, which was most pronounced in patients without severe/refractory ascites (HR: 0.37; P = 0.001) but not observed in patients with severe/refractory ascites (HR: 0.80; P = 0.567).

CONCLUSIONS

EBL alone seems sufficient for PP of variceal bleeding. In SP, the addition of NSBB to EBL was associated with an improved survival within the first 6 months after EBL.

Interventions for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis is an autosomal recessive inherited defect in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene resulting in abnormal regulation of salt and water movement across the membranes. In the liver this leads to focal biliary fibrosis resulting in progressive portal hypertension and end-stage liver disease in some individuals. This can be asymptomatic, but may lead to splenomegaly and hypersplenism, development of varices and variceal bleeding, and ascites; it has negative impact on overall nutritional status and respiratory function in this population. Prognosis is poor once significant portal hypertension is established. The role and outcome of various interventions for managing advanced liver disease (non-malignant end stage disease) in people with cystic fibrosis is currently unidentified.

OBJECTIVES

To review and assess the efficacy of currently available treatment options for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in children and adults with cystic fibrosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books.Date of last search: 06 April 2017.We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and online trials registries. Date of last search: 04 January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any published and unpublished randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials of advanced liver disease in cystic fibrosis with cirrhosis or liver failure, portal hypertension or variceal bleeding (or both).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors independently examined titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant trials, but none were eligible for inclusion in this review.

MAIN RESULTS

A comprehensive search of the literature did not identify any published eligible randomised controlled trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In order to develop the best source of evidence, there is a need to undertake randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in adults and children with cystic fibrosis.

Recent advances in the management of variceal bleeding

Acute haemorrhage from ruptured gastroesophageal varices is perhaps the most serious consequence of uncontrolled portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients. It represents a medical emergency and is associated with a high morbidity and mortality. In those who survive the initial bleeding event, the risks of further bleeding and other decompensated events remain high. The past 30 years have seen a slow evolution of management strategies that have greatly improved the chances of surviving a variceal haemorrhage. Liver cirrhosis is a multi-staged pathological process and we are moving away from a one-size-fits-all therapeutic approach. Instead there is an increasing recognition that a more nuanced approach will yield optimal survival for patients. This approach seeks to risk stratify patients according to their disease stage. The exact type and timing of treatment offered can then be varied to suit individual patients. At the same time, the toolbox of available therapy is expanding and there is a continual stream of emerging evidence to support the use of endoscopic and pharmacological therapies. In this review, we present a summary of the treatment options for a variety of different clinical scenarios and for when there is failure to control bleeding. We have conducted a detailed literature review and presented up-to-date evidence from either primary randomized-controlled trials or meta-analyses that support current treatment algorithms.

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

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

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis 2015

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology revised the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis in 2015. Eighty-three clinical questions were selected, and a literature search was performed for the clinical questions with use of the MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases for the period between 1983 and June 2012. Manual searching of the latest important literature was added until August 2015. The guidelines were developed with use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. This digest version in English introduces selected clinical questions and statements related to the management of liver cirrhosis and its complications. Branched-chain amino acids relieve hypoalbuminemia and hepatic encephalopathy and improve quality of life. Nucleoside analogues and peginterferon plus ribavirin combination therapy improve the prognosis of patients with hepatitis B virus related liver cirrhosis and hepatitis C related compensated liver cirrhosis, respectively, although the latter therapy may be replaced by direct-acting antivirals. For liver cirrhosis caused by primary biliary cirrhosis and active autoimmune hepatitis, urosodeoxycholic acid and steroid are recommended, respectively. The most adequate modalities for the management of variceal bleeding are the endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophageal varices and the balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration following endoscopic obturation with cyanoacrylate for gastric varices. Beta-blockers are useful for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding. The V2 receptor antagonist tolvaptan is a useful add-on therapy in careful diuretic therapy for ascites. Albumin infusion is useful for the prevention of paracentesis-induced circulatory disturbance and renal failure. In addition to disaccharides, the nonabsorbable antibiotic rifaximin is useful for the management of encephalopathy. Anticoagulation therapy is proposed for patients with acute-onset or progressive portal vein thrombosis.

Knowledge about non-invasive diagnostic tests for varices in liver cirrhosis: A questionnaire survey to the Gastroenterology Branch of the Liaoning Medical Association, China

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Due to the invasiveness of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, non-invasive diagnostic tests for varices in liver cirrhosis have been widely established by numerous studies. A questionnaire survey, which was aimed at understanding the current knowledge about non-invasive diagnostic tests for varices in liver cirrhosis, was distributed among the members of Gastroenterology Branch of the Liaoning Medical Association.

METHODS

A questionnaire assessing the knowledge about non-invasive diagnostic tests for varices was sent to 42 members who participated in the entire ninth committee. They were from 33 hospitals in 13 cities of Liaoning Province, China.

RESULTS

Overall, 97.6% (41/42) of participants responded to the questionnaire. A majority of participants were chief physicians (85.4%), had >20 years of experience in clinical work of digestive diseases (80.5%) and worked at tertiary hospitals (97.6%). In 46.3% of participants' departments, there were >200 patients with liver cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices admitted every year. In 90.2% of participants' departments, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was regularly employed for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal varices. Only six (15%) participants often used non-invasive diagnostic tests for varices in clinical practice. Thirty (75%) participants knew at least one non-invasive diagnostic test for varices. The knowledge of at least one non-invasive diagnostic test was significantly associated with the number of cirrhotic patients with varices (P = 0.038) or the regular use of gastrointestinal endoscopy to diagnose varices (P = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

This questionnaire survey suggested that non-invasive diagnostic tests for varices in liver cirrhosis were rarely or never used in clinical practices in Liaoning Province, China. Reliable, non-invasive indexes should be further explored in a well-designed multi-center observational study.

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.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: infliximab and immunosuppressant therapy vs. infliximab alone for active ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

The benefit of the combination of infliximab (IFX) and immunosuppressant (IS) therapy is debated in ulcerative colitis (UC).

AIMS

To determine whether the combination of IFX and IS therapy is more effective than infliximab alone for active UC regardless of prior IS use.

METHODS

We identified all controlled trials including patients with moderate-to-severe active UC, treated by either IFX or combined IFX-IS therapy. The main outcome was clinical remission at 4-6 months. Two statistical methods were used, Mantel-Haenszel and Der-Simonian and Laird. Inter-trial heterogeneity was taken into account and publication bias was assessed.

RESULTS

Four controlled trials were analysed and included in the meta-analysis. These four trials included 765 patients, 389 treated with IFX alone and 376 treated with IFX and IS. At 4-6 months' therapy, the clinical remission rate was significantly lower for the IFX monotherapy group OR 0.50, 95% CI [0.34-0.73], P < 0.01 (P-heterogeneity = 0.49). The Harbord test did not show evidence of publication bias (P = 0.29). Calculation of an adjusted OR using the Duval and Tweedie method did not significantly modify results [OR 0.63, 95% CI (0.47-0.85)]. According to Orwin's formula, four additional medium-sized nonsignificant studies would be necessary to reduce the effect size to a nonsignificant value. At 12 months of therapy, there was no significant difference between the two groups: OR 0.60, 95% CI [0.17-2.06], P = 0.41 (P-heterogeneity = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy with IFX-IS is more effective than IFX alone for achieving and maintaining clinical remission at 4-6 months for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis, regardless of prior IS use.

The comparison of esophageal variceal ligation plus propranolol versus propranolol alone for the primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To investigate the efficacy and longterm outcome of esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) plus propranolol in comparison with propranolol alone for the primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding.

METHODS

A total of 504 patients were retrospectively enrolled in this study. 330 patients were in propranolol group (Gr1) and 174 patients were in EVL plus propranolol group (Gr2). The endpoints of this study were esophageal variceal bleeding and mortality. Association analyses were performed to evaluate bleeding and mortality between Gr1 and Gr2.

RESULTS

EVL was more applied in patients with high risk, such as large-sized varices (F2 or F3) or positive red color signs. Total 38 patients had bleeds, 32 in Gr1 and 6 in Gr2. The cumulative probability of bleeding at 120 months was 13% in Gr1 versus 4% in Gr2 (P=0.04). The predictive factors of variceal bleeding were red color signs (OR 2.962, P=0.007) and the method of propranolol plus EVL (OR 0.160, P=0.000). 20 patients died in Gr1 and 12 in Gr2. Mortality rates are similar in the two groups compared, 6.7% in Gr1 and 6.9% in Gr2. The cumulative probability of mortality at 120 months was not significantly different in the two groups (7% in Gr1, 12% in Gr2, P=0.798). The prognostic factors for mortality were age over 50 (OR 5.496, P=0.002), Child-Pugh class B (OR 3.979, P=0.001), and Child-Pugh class C (OR 10.861, P=0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

EVL plus propranolol is more effective than propranolol alone in the prevention of the first variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis.

Prospective randomized trial: endoscopic follow up 3 vs 6 months after esophageal variceal eradication by band ligation in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is recommended to treat esophageal varices (EV) in cirrhosis and portal hypertension. A program of endoscopic surveillance is not clearly established. The aim of this prospective randomized trial was to assess the most effective timing of endoscopic monitoring after variceal eradication and its impact on the patient's outcome and on the costs.

METHODS

A hundred and two cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices treated by EVL were evaluated. After variceal eradication patients were randomized to receive first endoscopic control at 3 (Group 1) and 6 (Group 2) months respectively.

RESULTS

Variceal obliteration was achieved in all patients. Variceal recurrence was observed in 28 cases at the first control (29.1%) without difference between the two groups (32% vs 29% in group 1 and 2 respectively, p=0.75). The incidence of large varices is similar in the two groups (33% vs 38% respectively). Using a multivariate analysis, medical therapy with B blockers was the only independent predictor of lowest risk of variceal recurrence [OR 2.30, 95% CI (1.68-3.26)]. Bleeding related to recurrent varices occurred in 3.1% of cases and was associated with portal thrombosis. Child Pugh score ≥8 was the only predictor of mortality (p=0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrence of varices after banding ligation is not rare but it is associated with a low risk of variceal progression and bleeding. Accordingly, a first endoscopic control at 6 months after variceal eradication associated with a good risk stratification might be a cost-effective strategy of monitoring.

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.

Carvedilol vs. esophageal variceal band ligation in the primary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage: a multicentre randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Esophageal variceal bleed is a major problem in patients with cirrhosis. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) has been shown to be equal to or better than propranolol in preventing first bleed. Carvedilol is a non-selective β blocker with alpha-1 adrenergic blocker activity. Hemodynamic studies have shown carvedilol to be more effective than propranolol at reducing portal pressure. We compared efficacy of carvedilol with EVL for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleed.

METHODS

Cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices were randomized to carvedilol 12.5mg daily or EVL at three university hospitals of Pakistan. End points were esophageal variceal bleeding, death or liver transplant.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nine patients were evaluated. Eighty two and eighty six patients were randomized in carvedilol and EVL arms respectively. Mean age was 48 ± 12.2 years; 122 (72.7%) were males; 89.9% had viral cirrhosis; mean Child-Pugh score was 7.3 ± 1.6 and mean follow up was 13.3 ± 12.1 months (range 1-50 months). Both EVL and carvedilol groups had comparable variceal bleeding rates (8.5% vs. 6.9%), bleed related mortality (4.6% vs. 4.9%) and overall mortality (12.8% vs. 19.5%) respectively. Adverse events in carvedilol group were hypotension (n=2), requiring cessation of therapy, while transient nausea (n=18) and dyspnea (n=30) resolved spontaneously. In the EVL arm, post banding ulcer bleed (n=1) and chest pain (n=17), were termed as serious adverse events while transient dysphagia (n=58) resolved without treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our study is underpowered, the findings suggest that carvedilol is probably not superior to EVL in preventing first variceal bleed in patients with viral cirrhosis.

Pre-primary and Primary Prophylaxis of Variceal Hemorrhage

Variceal hemorrhage is a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension. Thus, prevention of variceal formation (pre-primary prophylaxis) or at least prevention of variceal bleeding are important goals to improve life quality and—if possible—survival of patients with liver cirrhosis. Interruption of the underlying cause of liver disease is the most successful approach, which, however, often fails. For this situation interruption or modulation of different pathophysiological mechanisms leading to fibrosis, hyperdynamic circulation and portal hypertension have been shown effective in animal models. But few could be translated to humans. By contrast, different steps to prevent first bleeding from varices have proven successful in many clinical trials. These applied mainly drugs to lower portal pressure, such as nonselective β-blockers, or endoscopic obliteration of varices, while prophylactic shunt procedures are not advised.

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.

[Mexican consensus on portal hypertension]

The aim of the Mexican Consensus on Portal Hypertension was to develop documented guidelines to facilitate clinical practice when dealing with key events of the patient presenting with portal hypertension and variceal bleeding. The panel of experts was made up of Mexican gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and endoscopists, all distinguished professionals. The document analyzes themes of interest in the following modules: preprimary and primary prophylaxis, acute variceal hemorrhage, and secondary prophylaxis. The management of variceal bleeding has improved considerably in recent years. Current information indicates that the general management of the cirrhotic patient presenting with variceal bleeding should be carried out by a multidisciplinary team, with such an approach playing a major role in the final outcome. The combination of drug and endoscopic therapies is recommended for initial management; vasoactive drugs should be started as soon as variceal bleeding is suspected and maintained for 5 days. After the patient is stabilized, urgent diagnostic endoscopy should be carried out by a qualified endoscopist, who then performs the corresponding endoscopic variceal treatment. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be regarded as an integral part of treatment, started upon hospital admittance and continued for 5 days. If there is treatment failure, rescue therapies should be carried out immediately, taking into account that interventional radiology therapies are very effective in controlling refractory variceal bleeding. These guidelines have been developed for the purpose of achieving greater clinical efficacy and are based on the best evidence of portal hypertension that is presently available.