Somatostatin treatment and risk stratification by continuous portal pressure monitoring during acute variceal bleeding

Pathophysiology and management of liver cirrhosis: from portal hypertension to acute-on-chronic liver failure

Cirrhosis transcends various progressive stages from compensation to decompensation driven by the severity of portal hypertension. The downstream effect of increasing portal hypertension severity leads to various pathophysiological pathways, which result in the cardinal complications of cirrhosis, including ascites, variceal hemorrhage, and hepatic encephalopathy. Additionally, the severity of portal hypertension is the central driver for further advanced complications of hyperdynamic circulation, hepatorenal syndrome, and cirrhotic cardiomyopathy. The management of these individual complications has specific nuances which have undergone significant developments. In contrast to the classical natural history of cirrhosis and its complications which follows an insidious trajectory, acute-on-chronic failure (ACLF) leads to a rapidly downhill course with high short-term mortality unless intervened at the early stages. The management of ACLF involves specific interventions, which have quickly evolved in recent years. In this review, we focus on complications of portal hypertension and delve into an approach toward ACLF.

Attach importance to the individualized treatment of adult portal hypertension based on etiology and pathogenesis: A review

There are many factors that can cause portal hypertension and secondary symptoms such as ascites, splenomegaly, and variceal hemorrhage, can seriously affect patients' quality of life and even threaten their lives. In this paper, we summarize various causes of portal hypertension based on etiology and pathogenesis and give individualized treatment strategies in order to remind clinicians to pay attention to the identification of different causes and select corresponding treatment, so that patients are provided with the optimal treatment strategies and benefit from them.

Endovascular Assessment of Liver Hemodynamics in Patients with Cirrhosis Complicated by Portal Hypertension

The hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is currently considered the gold standard to assess portal hypertension (PH) in patients with cirrhosis. A meticulous technique is important to achieve accurate and reproducible results, and values obtained during measurement are applied in risk stratification of patients with PH, allocating treatment options, monitoring follow-up, and deciding management options in surgical patients. The use of portosystemic pressure gradients in patients undergoing placement of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts has been studied extensively and has great influence on decisions on shunt diameter. The purpose of this study was to describe the recommended technique to measure HVPG and portosystemic pressure gradient and to review the existing literature describing the importance of these hemodynamic measurements in clinical practice.

Low-dose continuous terlipressin infusion is effective and safer than intravenous bolus injections in reducing portal pressure and control of acute variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Continuous infusion of terlipressin is better tolerated, and equally effective at lower doses than intravenous boluses in type 1 hepatorenal syndrome. This approach in cirrhosis patients with acute esophageal variceal bleed was investigated by comparing the efficacy and adverse events of continuous versus bolus administration of terlipressin.

METHODS

One hundred ten consecutive cirrhosis patients with acute esophageal variceal bleed (AEVB) were randomized to receive either terlipressin as bolus (BOL, n = 55), 2 mg every 4 h, or, continuous infusion (CONI, n = 55), 4 mg/24 h for 5 days. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) was measured at baseline, 12 and 24 h and response to terlipressin was defined as > 10% decline from baseline.

RESULTS

Baseline demographics, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and HVPG were comparable between groups. The primary objective of HVPG response at 24 h was achieved in significantly more patients in CONI than BOL group {47/55(85.4%) vs. 32/55(58.2%), p = 0.002}. Early HVPG response at 12 h was also higher in CONI group (71.5 vs. 49.1%, p < 0.01). Median dose of terlipressin was significantly lower {4.25 ± 1.26 mg vs. 7.42 ± 1.42 mg/24 h, p < 0.001)} and adverse events were fewer {20/55(36.3%) vs. 31/55(56.4%), p = 0.03} in the CONI than BOL group. Significantly higher incidence of very early rebleed was noted in BOL group {8/55 (14.5%) vs. 1/55, (1.8%), p = 0.03}. Baseline HVPG (OR 1.90, 95% CI = 1.25-2.89, p = 0.002) and MELD (OR 1.18, 95% CI = 0.99-1.41, p = 0.05) were predictors of rebleed.

CONCLUSION

"HVPG-tailored" continuous terlipressin infusion is more effective than bolus administration in reducing HVPG at a lower dose with fewer adverse events in cirrhotic patients.

CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER

NCT02695862.

EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on prevention and management of bleeding and thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis

The prevention and management of bleeding and thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis poses several difficult clinical questions. These Clinical Practice Guidelines have been developed to provide practical guidance on debated topics, including current views on haemostasis in liver disease, controversy regarding the need to correct thrombocytopenia and abnormalities in the coagulation system in patients undergoing invasive procedures, and the need for thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients with haemostatic abnormalities. Multiple recommendations in this document are based on interventions that the panel feels are not useful, even though widely applied in clinical practice.

Endoscopic therapy + β-blocker vs. covered transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with hepatic venous pressure gradient ≥16 mmHg

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Currently, monitoring hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) have been proved to be the best predictor for the risk of variceal bleeding. We performed the study to evaluate the effect of endoscopic therapy + β-blocker vs. covered transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with HVPG ≥16 mmHg.

METHODS

Consecutive cirrhotic patients with HVPG ≥16 mmHg treated with endoscopic therapy + β-blocker or covered TIPS for variceal bleeding were retrospectively gathered between April 2013 and December 2018. The variceal rebleeding rate, survival, and incidence of overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE) were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients were analyzed, of which 46 received endoscopic therapy + β-blocker and 37 covered TIPS. During a median follow-up of 12.0 months, the rebleeding rate (32.6 vs. 10.8%, P = 0.017) and rate of OHE (2.2 vs. 27.0%, P = 0.001) showed significant differences between the two groups, while liver transplantation-free survival (93.5 vs. 94.6%, P = 0.801) was similar. Preoperative and postoperative Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores were similar in either group. In addition, no significant differences of rebleeding rate (25.0 vs. 21.3%, P = 0.484) and survival (97.2 vs. 91.5%, P = 0.282) were observed between patients with 16 mmHg ≤ HVPG < 20 mmHg and HVPG ≥ 20 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

Covered TIPS was more effective than endoscopic therapy + β-blocker in preventing rebleeding in patients with HVPG ≥16 mmHg but did not improve survival. TIPS also induce more OHE.

The pharmacodynamic effect of terlipressin versus high-dose octreotide in reducing hepatic venous pressure gradient: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Vasoactive drugs can reduce portal venous pressure and control variceal bleeding. However, few studies have explored the hemodynamic effects of terlipressin and high-dose octreotide in such patients. Our purpose was to evaluate the hemodynamic changes and safety of using terlipressin and high-dose octreotide in patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis.

Methods

A multi-center randomized controlled trial was conducted. Cirrhotic patients with a history of variceal bleeding were included. Terlipressin or high-dose octreotide was administered during the procedure of measuring hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). Hemodynamic parameters and symptoms were recorded.

Results

A total of 88 patients were included. HVPG was significantly reduced at 10, 20, and 30 min after drug administration in the terlipressin group (16.3±6.4 vs. 14.7±5.9, 14.0±6.1, and 13.8±6.1, respectively, P<0.001) and the high-dose octreotide group (17.4±6.6 vs. 15.1±5.8, 15.3±6.2, and 16.1±6.0, respectively P<0.01). Decreased heart rate and increased mean arterial pressure were more often observed in the terlipressin group. The overall response rates were not significantly different between the groups (52.8% vs. 44.8%, P=0.524). The terlipressin group had significantly higher response rates at 30 min compared to the high-dose octreotide group in those with alcoholic liver cirrhosis [6/6 (100%) vs. 0/4 (0%), P=0.005]. The incidence of adverse drug events was rare and similar in the two groups.

Conclusions

Both terlipressin and high-dose octreotide were effective and safe for reducing HVPG. The pharmacodynamic effect of terlipressin persisted longer. The terlipressin group had higher response rates in those with alcoholic cirrhosis (trial number: NCT02119884).

Treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.

Pathophysiology and Management of Variceal Bleeding

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

Somatostatin administration following pancreatoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison according to surgical technique, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists' score and Fistula Risk Score

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the controversial role of somatostatin after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), stratifying patients for the main risk factors using the most recent postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) classification and including only patients who had undergone PD with the same technique of pancreatojejunostomy.

METHODS

Between November 2010 and February 2020, 218 PD procedures were carried out via personal modified pancreatojejunostomy (mPJ-PD). Somatostatin was routinely administered between 2010 and 2016, while from 2017, 97 mPJ-PD procedures without somatostatin (WS) were performed. The WS group was retrospectively compared with a control (C) group obtained with one-to-one case-control matching according to the body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists' score, and Fistula Risk Score (FRS).

RESULTS

A total of 144 patients (72 WS group versus 72 C group) were compared. In the WS group. 6 patients (8.3%) developed clinically relevant POPF, compared with 8 patients (11.1%) in the C group (p = 0.656). In addition, on analyzing the subgroup of high-risk patients according to the FRS, we did not note any significant differences in POPF occurrence. Furthermore, no marked differences in the morbidity or mortality were found. Digestive bleeding and diabetes onset rates were higher in the WS group than in the control group, but not significantly so.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study confirm no benefit with the routine administration of somatostatin after PD to prevent POPF, even in high-risk patients. However, a possible role in the prevention of postoperative digestive bleeding and diabetes was observed.

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

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

Precision medicine in variceal bleeding: Are we there yet?

Variceal bleeding is one of the most feared complications of portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis because of its deleterious impact on prognosis. Adequate management of patients at risk of developing variceal bleeding includes the prevention of the first episode of variceal bleeding and rebleeding, and is crucial in modifying prognosis. The presence of clinically significant portal hypertension is the main factor determining the risk of development of varices and other liver-related decompensations; therefore, it should be carefully screened for and monitored. Treating patients with clinically significant portal hypertension based on their individual risk of portal hypertension-related bleeding undoubtedly improves prognosis. The evaluation of liver haemodynamics and liver function can stratify patients according to their risk of bleeding and are no question useful tools to guide therapy in an individualised manner. That said, recent data support the idea that tailoring therapy to patient characteristics may effectively impact on prognosis and increase survival in all clinical scenarios. This review will focus on evaluating the available evidence supporting the use of individual risk characteristics for clinical decision-making and their impact on clinical outcome and survival. In primary prophylaxis, identification and treatment of patients with clinically significant portal hypertension improves decompensation-free survival. In the setting of acute variceal bleeding, the risk of failure and rebleeding can be easily predicted, allowing for early escalation of treatment (i.e. pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt) which can improve survival in appropriate candidates. Stratifying the risk of recurrent variceal bleeding based on liver function and haemodynamic response to non-selective beta-blockers allows for tailored treatment, thereby increasing survival and avoiding adverse events.

Peptide-based therapy in portal hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the use of gastrointestinal peptides in the management of portal hypertension.

RECENT FINDINGS

Vasoactive peptides are commonly used in the management of acute variceal hemorrhage and hepatorenal syndrome, which are portal hypertensive complications of cirrhosis. The main vasoactive peptides that are used are somatostatin and its long-acting analogue octreotide, and vasopressin and its analogue terlipressin. Early initiation of vasoactive peptides in the management of acute variceal hemorrhage and hepatorenal syndrome is associated with improved outcomes. Octreotide is the available vasoactive peptide in the Unites States. Recent developments and ongoing clinical trials may improve our understanding of hepatorenal syndrome and influence the use of vasoactive peptides, particularly terlipressin.

SUMMARY

Here, we review the literature on the use of vasoactive peptides in the management of acute variceal hemorrhage and hepatorenal syndrome.

The Use of Prophylactic Somatostatin Therapy Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic administration of somatostatin analogues (SA) to reduce the incidence of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains contentious. This meta-analysis evaluated its impact on outcomes following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

The EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating prophylactic SA following PD. Comparative effects were summarised as odds ratio and weighted mean difference based on an intention to treat. Quantitative pooling of the effect sizes was derived using the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve RCTs were included involving 1615 patients [SA-treated group (n = 820) and control group (n = 795)]. The SA used included somatostatin-14, pasireotide, vapreotide and octreotide. Pooling of the data showed no significant benefit of its use for the primary outcome measure of all grades of POPF, odds ratio (OR) 0.73 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.51-1.05, p = 0.09] and clinically relevant POPF, OR 0.48 [95% CI, 0.22-1.06, p = 0.07]. There were no benefits in the secondary outcome measures of delayed gastric emptying, OR 0.98 [95% CI, 0.57-1.69, p = 0.94]; infected abdominal collections, OR 0.80 [95% CI, 0.44-1.43, p = 0.80]; reoperation rates, OR 1.24 [95% CI, 0.73-2.13, p = 0.42]; duration of hospital stay, - 0.23 [95% CI - .59 to 1.13, p = 0.74]; and mortality, 1.78 [95% CI, 0.94-3.39, p = 0.08].

CONCLUSION

SA did not improve the post-operative outcomes following PD, including reducing the incidence of POPF. The routine administration of SA cannot be recommended following PD.

Short-term vasoactive agent treatment driven by physicians' preference in acute esophageal variceal bleeding in a tertiary center

Background

Vasoactive drugs are frequently used in combination with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in treatment of acute esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB). The aim of study was to assess physicians’ preference of vasoactive agents in acute EVB, their reasons of preference and efficacy and safety of these short course regimens.

Methods

Cirrhotic patients with suspected EVB were screened (n = 352). Eligible patients were assigned based on the physician’s preference to either somatostatin (group S) or terlipressin (group T) followed by EVL. In group S, intravenous bolus (250 µg) of somatostatin followed by 250 µg/hour was continued for three days. In group T, 2 mg bolus injection of terlipressin was followed by 1 mg infusion every 6 h for three days.

Results

A total of 150 patients were enrolled; 41 in group S and 109 in group T. Reasons for physician preference was convenience in administration (77.1%) for group T and good safety profile (73.2%) for group S. Very early rebleeding within 49–120 h occurred in one patient in groups S and T (p = 0.469). Four patients in group S and 14 patients in group T have variceal rebleeding episodes within 6–42 d (p = 0.781). Overall treatment-related adverse effects were compatible in groups S and T (p = 0.878), but the total cost of terlipressin and somatostatin differed i.e., USD 621.32 and USD 496.43 respectively.

Conclusions

Terlipressin is the preferred vasoactive agent by physicians in our institution for acute EVB. Convenience in administration and safety profile are main considerations of physicians. Safety and hemostatic effects did not differ significantly between short-course somatostatin or terlipressin, although terlipressin is more expensive.

Pharmacologic Management of Portal Hypertension

Terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide are recommended as pharmacologic treatment of acute variceal hemorrhage. Nonselective β-blockers decrease the risk of variceal hemorrhage and hepatic decompensation, particularly in those 30% to 40% of patients with good hemodynamic response. Carvedilol, statins, and anticoagulants are promising agents in the management of portal hypertension. Recent advances in the pharmacologic treatment of portal hypertension have mainly focused on modifying an increased intrahepatic resistance through nitric oxide and/or modulation of vasoactive substances. Several novel pharmacologic agents for portal hypertension are being evaluated in humans.

Evaluation of postoperative ascites after somatostatin infusion following hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma by laparotomy: a multicenter randomized double-blind controlled trial (SOMAPROTECT)

Background

The majority of patients undergoing hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) suffer from underlying liver disease and are exposed to the risk of postoperative ascites, which is favored by an imbalance between portal venous inflow and a diminished hepatic volume. Finding a reversible, non-invasive method for modulating the portal inflow would be of interest as it could be used temporarily during the early postoperative course. Somatostatin, a well-known drug already used in several indications, may limit the risk of postoperative ascites and liver failure by decreasing portal pressure after hepatectomy for HCC in patients with underlying liver disease. We aimed to evaluate the impact of somatostatin postoperative infusion on the incidence of ascites following hepatectomy by laparotomy for HCC in patients with underlying liver disease.

Methods/design

The SOMAPROTECT study is a multicenter randomized double-blind placebo controlled phase III trial comparing two arms of patients with underlying liver disease undergoing hepatectomy for HCC by open approach. All patients will have primary abdominal drainage before closure. Patients in the experimental arm will receive a postoperative intravenous infusion of somatostatin during 6 days. Patients in the control group will receive a placebo infusion for the same duration. The primary endpoint will be the presence or absence of postoperative ascites occurring during the 90-day postoperative course, defined as ≥500 ml/24 h of fluid in the drains during at least 3 days or any ascites requiring an invasive procedure comprising percutaneous puncture or drainage. Secondary endpoints will be duration and total volume of ascites, postoperative 90-day mortality and morbidity, liver failure, acute renal failure, length of stay in intensive care unit and hospital stay. The total number of patients to be enrolled was calculated to be 152.

Discussion

Postoperative ascites remains a major issue after hepatectomy for HCC as it is associated with increased morbidity, liver and renal failure, the need for specific treatments and prolonged hospital stay. This study represents the first randomized controlled trial to assess the benefits of somatostatin on the risk of postoperative ascites after surgery for HCC.

Trial registration

NCT02799212 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier). Registered prior to conducting the research on 9 June 2016.

Variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients

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

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

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

Addition of Somatostatin After Successful Endoscopic Variceal Ligation Does not Prevent Early Rebleeding in Comparison to Placebo: A Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Efficacy of endoscopic sclerotherapy in controlling acute variceal bleeding is significantly improved when vasoactive drug is added. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is superior to sclerotherapy. Whether efficacy of EVL will also improve with addition of somatostatin is not known. We compared EVL plus somatostatin versus EVL plus placebo in control of acute variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Consecutive cirrhotic patients with acute esophageal variceal bleeding were enrolled. After emergency EVL, patients were randomized to receive either somatostatin (250 mcg/hr) or placebo infusion. Primary endpoint was treatment failure within 5 days. Treatment failure was defined as fresh hematemesis ≥2 h after start of therapy, or a 3 gm drop in Hb, or death.

RESULTS

61 patients were enrolled (EVL plus somatostatin group, n = 31 and EVL plus placebo group, n = 30). The baseline characteristics were similar. Within the initial 5-day period, the frequency of treatment failure was similar in both the groups (EVL plus somatostatin group 8/31 [26%] versus EVL plus placebo group 7/30 [23%]; P = 1.000). The mortality was also similar in the two groups (3/31 [10%] vs. 3/30 [10%]; P = 1.000). Baseline HVPG ≥19 mm Hg and active bleeding at index endoscopy were independent predictors of treatment failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of somatostatin infusion to EVL therapy does not offer any advantage in control of acute variceal bleeding or reducing mortality. The reason for this may be its failure to maintain sustained reduction in portal pressure for five days. Active bleeding at index endoscopy and high baseline HVPG should help choose early alternative treatment options. Trial registered with ClincalTrials.gov vide NCT01267669.

Relative adrenal insufficiency in severe acute variceal and non-variceal bleeding: influence on outcomes

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Relative adrenal insufficiency (RAI) is common in critical illness and in cirrhosis, and is related with worse outcomes. The prevalence of RAI may be different in variceal and non-variceal bleeding and whether it may influence outcomes in these settings is unclear. This study assesses RAI and its prognostic implications in cirrhosis with variceal bleeding and in peptic ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

Patients with severe bleeding (systolic pressure <100 mmHg and/or haemoglobin <8 g/L) from oesophageal varices or from a peptic ulcer were included. Adrenal function was evaluated within the first 24 h and RAI was diagnosed as delta cortisol <250 nmol/L after 250 μg of i.v. corticotropin.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were included, 36 had cirrhosis and variceal bleeding and 26 without cirrhosis had ulcer bleeding. Overall, 15 patients (24%) had RAI, 8 (22%) with variceal and 7 (24%) with ulcer bleeding. Patients with RAI had higher rate of bacterial infections. Baseline serum and salivary cortisol were higher in patients with RAI (P < 0.001) while delta cortisol was lower (P < 0.001). There was a good correlation between plasma and salivary cortisol (P < 0.001). The probability of 45-days survival without further bleeding was lower in cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding and RAI than in those without RAI (25% vs 68%, P = 0.02), but not in non-cirrhotic patients with peptic ulcer bleeding with or without RAI (P = 0.75).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of RAI is similar in ulcer bleeding and in cirrhosis with variceal bleeding. Cirrhotic patients with RAI, but not those with bleeding ulcers, have worse prognosis.

Transfusion strategy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Clinical question

Does a hemoglobin transfusion threshold of 70 g/L yield better patient outcomes than a threshold of 90 g/L in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding?

Article chosen

Villanueva C, Colomo A, Bosch A, et al. Transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. N Engl J Med 2013;368(1):11-21.

Study objectives

The authors of this study measured mortality, from any cause, within the first 45 days, in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, who were managed with a hemoglobin threshold for red cell transfusion of either 70 g/L or 90 g/L. The secondary outcome measures included rate of further bleeding and rate of adverse events.

Early-TIPSS placement prevents rebleeding in high-risk patients with variceal bleeding, without improving survival

BACKGROUND

Early-TIPSS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt) placement may improve rebleeding and reduce 1-year mortality, compared to standard management in high-risk patients with cirrhosis and variceal bleeding.

AIM

To obtain external validation of this therapeutic approach.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study including all consecutive patients with Child-Pugh C 10-13 cirrhosis or Child-Pugh B with active bleeding at endoscopy admitted to our ICU between March 2011 and February 2013 for variceal bleeding. TIPSS were placed within 72 h after stabilisation. Patients were matched for gender, age, Child-Pugh score, MELD score and to patients from a historical cohort hospitalised before March 2011.

RESULTS

31/128 patients with cirrhosis (77.4% men, mean age 53.2 ± 9.0 years old, MELD score 20.9 ± 6.9, Child-Pugh C: 77.4%) admitted for acute variceal bleeding between March 2011 and February 2013 (TIPSS+ group) were matched to 31 historical patients (TIPSS- group). Uncontrolled bleeding occurred in 1/31 patients in the TIPSS+ group vs. 2/31 patients in TIPSS- group (P = 0.55). The 1-year probability of being free of rebleeding was higher in the TIPSS+ group (97% vs. 51%, P < 0.001). Actuarial 1-year survival was not different between the two groups (66.8 ± 9.4% vs. 74.2 ± 7.8%, P = 0.78). Acute cardiac failure occurred more frequently in the TIPSS+ group (25.8% vs. 6.4%, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Early-TIPSS placement effectively prevents rebleeding in high-risk patients with variceal bleeding but does not significantly improve survival. This might be due to the high proportion of patients with Child-Pugh C cirrhosis in our series. Cardiac failure may play a role and must be investigated before the procedure, when possible.

Prophylactic octreotide for pancreatoduodenectomy: more harm than good?

BACKGROUND

Most accrued evidence regarding prophylactic octreotide for a pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) predates the advent of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) classification system for a post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF), and its efficacy in the setting of high POPF risk is unknown. The Fistula Risk Score (FRS) predicts the risk and impact of a clinically relevant (CR)-POPF and can be useful in assessing the impact of octreotide in scenarios of risk.

METHODS

From 2001-2013, 1018 PDs were performed at four institutions, with octreotide administered at the surgeon's discretion. The FRS was used to analyse the occurrence and burden of POPF across various risk scenarios.

RESULTS

Overall, 391 patients (38.4%) received octreotide. A CR-POPF occurred more often when octreotide was used (21.0% versus 7.0%; P < 0.001), especially when there was advanced FRS risk. Octreotide administration also correlated with an increased hospital stay (mean: 13 versus 11 days; P < 0.001). Regression analysis, controlling for FRS risk, demonstrated that octreotide increases the risk for CR-POPF development.

CONCLUSION

This multi-institutional study, using ISGPF criteria, evaluates POPF development across the entire risk spectrum. Octreotide appears to confer no benefit in preventing a CR-POPF, and may even potentiate CR-POPF development in the presence of risk factors. This analysis suggests octreotide should not be utilized as a POPF mitigation strategy.

Pharmacologic management of portal hypertension

Progress in the knowledge of the pathophysiology of portal hypertension has disclosed new targets for therapy, resulting in a larger spectrum of drugs with a potential role for clinical practice. This review focuses on pharmacologic treatments already available for reducing portal pressure and summarizes drugs currently under investigation in this field.

Splanchnic vasodilation and hyperdynamic circulatory syndrome in cirrhosis

Portal hypertension is a clinical syndrome which leads to several clinical complications, such as the formation and rupture of esophageal and/or gastric varices, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and hepato-renal syndrome. In cirrhosis, the primary cause of the increase in portal pressure is the enhanced resistance to portal outflow. However, also an increase in splanchnic blood flow worsens and maintains portal hypertension. The vasodilatation of arterial splanchnic vessels and the opening of collateral circulation are the determinants of the increased splanchnic blood flow. Several vasoactive systems/substances, such as nitric oxide, cyclooxygenase-derivatives, carbon monoxide and endogenous cannabinoids are activated in portal hypertension and are responsible for the marked splanchnic vasodilatation. Moreover, an impaired reactivity to vasoconstrictor systems, such as the sympathetic nervous system, vasopressin, angiotensin II and endothelin-1, plays a role in this process. The opening of collateral circulation occurs through the reperfusion and dilatation of preexisting vessels, but also through the generation of new vessels. Splanchnic vasodilatation leads to the onset of the hyperdynamic circulatory syndrome, a syndrome which occurs in patients with portal hypertension and is characterized by increased cardiac output and heart rate, and decreased systemic vascular resistance with low arterial blood pressure. Understanding the pathophysiology of splanchnic vasodilatation and hyperdynamic circulatory syndrome is mandatory for the prevention and treatment of portal hypertension and its severe complications.

Revising the criteria for the predictors of variceal haemorrhage outcome

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

There are many criteria and definitions used to evaluate the failure to control and prevent variceal bleeding. Baveno criteria were developed in Baveno consensus workshops I-III. Some of these criteria are fairly difficult to apply and do not adequately reflect common situations that are observed in clinical practice. Therefore, new criteria were developed at the Baveno-IV workshop. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the validity of Baveno II-IV criteria in the prediction of bleeding recurrence among patients with liver cirrhosis who presented with bleeding oesophageal varices.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty patients with liver cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding were divided into two groups according to treatment response. Group I consisted of 44 patients for whom treatment to control bleeding was successful, and Group II included 6 patients for whom treatment failed. Baveno criteria were used in the evaluation of treatment outcome in these patients.

RESULTS

The overall accuracy of Baveno II and III criteria was 87.3% within the first 6h and 76.5% after 6h, with a mean accuracy 81.9%. The overall accuracy of Baveno IV criteria in this study was 83%. The criterion of death was also very specific (100%), with 100% PPV, but its sensitivity was very low (16.7%).

CONCLUSION

Baveno IV criteria are less complicated, much easier to apply and have nearly the same accuracy as Baveno II/III criteria. However, there are some criteria that need to be modified, such as the adjusted blood requirement index (ABR1), among others.

Measurement of hepatic venous pressure gradient is feasible and safe in children

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is an indirect measure of portal venous pressure in cirrhosis, which is valid in cirrhotic adults for evaluating the severity of portal hypertension, predicting outcomes, and guiding therapeutic decisions. Published data on the measurement of HVPG in children are sparse. The aim of the present study was to determine the feasibility and safety of undertaking HVPG measurements in children.

METHODS

Children who underwent HVPG measurements between 2000 and 2011 were identified from our interventional radiology database. Medical charts were reviewed for clinical, procedural, and outcome data.

RESULTS

A total of 49 patients (25 boys, mean age 8.2 ± 5.6 years) underwent 52 HVPG measurements. Diagnoses included cirrhosis (n = 7), acute liver failure (n = 15), postliver transplant (n = 6), postbone marrow transplant (n = 9), vascular anomalies (n = 3), and others (n = 9). There were no complications related to HVPG measurement. HVPG values ranged between 0 and 28 mmHg, median 9.0 (range 0-28) mmHg, and were elevated >6 mmHg in 30 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

HVPG measurement is feasible and safe in children with severe liver disease. The clinical use of HVPG measurements in managing children with portal hypertension or with acute liver diseases must now be determined.

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.

[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.

Transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

The hemoglobin threshold for transfusion of red cells in patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding is controversial. We compared the efficacy and safety of a restrictive transfusion strategy with those of a liberal transfusion strategy.

METHODS

We enrolled 921 patients with severe acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and randomly assigned 461 of them to a restrictive strategy (transfusion when the hemoglobin level fell below 7 g per deciliter) and 460 to a liberal strategy (transfusion when the hemoglobin fell below 9 g per deciliter). Randomization was stratified according to the presence or absence of liver cirrhosis.

RESULTS

A total of 225 patients assigned to the restrictive strategy (51%), as compared with 61 assigned to the liberal strategy (14%), did not receive transfusions (P<0.001) [corrected].The probability of survival at 6 weeks was higher in the restrictive-strategy group than in the liberal-strategy group (95% vs. 91%; hazard ratio for death with restrictive strategy, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.92; P=0.02). Further bleeding occurred in 10% of the patients in the restrictive-strategy group as compared with 16% of the patients in the liberal-strategy group (P=0.01), and adverse events occurred in 40% as compared with 48% (P=0.02). The probability of survival was slightly higher with the restrictive strategy than with the liberal strategy in the subgroup of patients who had bleeding associated with a peptic ulcer (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.26 to 1.25) and was significantly higher in the subgroup of patients with cirrhosis and Child-Pugh class A or B disease (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.85), but not in those with cirrhosis and Child-Pugh class C disease (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.37). Within the first 5 days, the portal-pressure gradient increased significantly in patients assigned to the liberal strategy (P=0.03) but not in those assigned to the restrictive strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

As compared with a liberal transfusion strategy, a restrictive strategy significantly improved outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. (Funded by Fundació Investigació Sant Pau; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00414713.).

Balloon-occluded Retrograde Transvenous Obliteration (BRTO): Preprocedural Evaluation and Imaging

Patients undergoing balloon retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) are mostly decompensated cirrhotic with either bleeding gastric varices (GV) or hepatic encephalopathy. It is crucial that clinicians are up-to-date with the assessments needed prior to BRTO to anticipate and prevent complications, and to deliver critical quality care. These patients will require preprocedural assessments and management, including endoscopic, clinical, laboratory, and imaging evaluation. Endoscopic evaluation is mandatory prior to BRTO, and it is highly recommended that it be performed at the same institution where BRTO will be performed. It is essential that clinicians are aware of the potential benefits and complications that may result from BRTO. These complications should be anticipated and prevented when possible. For GV bleeders, there should be consideration of a transvenous intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) during or before BRTO in patients with refractory ascites or pleural effusion, as well as endoscopic banding or a TIPS in patients with high-risk esophageal varices. Patients undergoing BRTO are usually complicated and require a team approach. In this article, the authors address these assessment and preparatory management and planning procedures prior to the BRTO procedure as well as expected outcomes and potential complications.

Medical and endoscopic management of gastric varices

In the past 20 years, our understanding of the pathophysiology and management options among patients with gastric varices (GV) has changed significantly. GV are the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with portal hypertension after esophageal varices (EV) and generally have more severe bleeding than EV. In the United States, the majority of GV patients have underlying portal hypertension rather than splenic vein thrombosis. The widely used classifications are the Sarin Endoscopic Classification and the Japanese Vascular Classifications. The former is based on the endoscopic appearance and location of the varices, while the Japanese classification is based on the underlying vascular anatomy. In this article, the authors address the current concepts of classification, epidemiology, pathophysiology, and emerging management options of gastric varices. They describe the stepwise approach to patients with gastric varices, including the different available modalities, and the pearls, pitfalls, and stop-gap measures useful in managing patients with gastric variceal bleed.

Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration of gastric varices: concept, basic techniques, and outcomes

Patients with gastric variceal bleeding require a multidisciplinary team approach including hepatologists, endoscopists, diagnostic radiologists, and interventional radiologists. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is the first-line diagnostic and management tool for bleeding gastric varices, as it is in all upper gastrointestinal bleeding scenarios. In the United States when endoscopy fails to control gastric variceal bleeding, a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) traditionally is performed along the classic teachings of decompressing the portal circulation. However, TIPS has not shown the same effectiveness in controlling gastric variceal bleeding that it has with esophageal variceal bleeding. For the past 2 decades, the balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) procedure has become common practice in Asia for the management of gastric varices. BRTO is gaining popularity in the United States. It has been shown to be effective in controlling gastric variceal bleeding with low rebleed rates. BRTO has many advantages over TIPS in that it is less invasive and can be performed on patients with poor hepatic reserve and those with encephalopathy (and may even improve both). However, its by-product is occlusion of a spontaneous hepatofugal (TIPS equivalent) shunt, and thus it is contradictory to the traditional American doctrine of portal decompression. Indeed, BRTO causes an increase in portal hypertension, with potential aggravation of esophageal varices and ascites. This article discusses the concept, technique, and outcomes of BRTO within the broader management of gastric varices.

Improved survival with the patients with variceal bleed

Variceal hemorrhage is a major cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. Over the past two decades new treatment modalities have been introduced in the management of acute variceal bleeding (AVB) and several recent studies have suggested that the outcome of patients with cirrhosis and AVB has improved. Improved supportive measures, combination therapy which include early use of portal pressure reducing drugs with low rates of adverse effects (somatostatin, octerotide or terlipressin) and endoscopic variceal ligation has become the first line treatment in the management of AVB. Short-term antibiotic prophylaxis, early use of lactulose for prevention of hepatic encephalopathy, application of early transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic shunts (TIPS), fully covered self-expandable metallic stent in patients for AVB may be useful in those cases where balloon tamponade is considered. Early and wide availability of liver transplantation has changed the armamentarium of the clinician for patients with AVB. High hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) >20 mmHg in AVB has become a useful predictor of outcomes and more aggressive therapies with early TIPS based on HVPG measurement may be the treatment of choice to reduce mortality further.

The pharmacological therapy of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

The modern management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding includes, in selected patients, the performance of timely multimodal endoscopic hemostasis followed by profound acid suppression. This article discusses the available data on the use of antisecretory regimens in the management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, which are a major cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and briefly addresses other medications used in this acute setting. The most important clinically relevant data are presented, favoring fully published articles.

Acute esophageal variceal bleeding: Current strategies and new perspectives

Management of acute variceal bleeding has greatly improved over recent years. Available data indicates that general management of the bleeding cirrhotic patient by an experienced multidisciplinary team plays a major role in the final outcome of this complication. It is currently recommended to combine pharmacological and endoscopic therapies for the initial treatment of the acute bleeding. Vasoactive drugs (preferable somatostatin or terlipressin) should be started as soon as a variceal bleeding is suspected (ideally during transfer to hospital) and maintained afterwards for 2-5 d. After stabilizing the patient with cautious fluid and blood support, an emergency diagnostic endoscopy should be done and, as soon as a skilled endoscopist is available, an endoscopic variceal treatment (ligation as first choice, sclerotherapy if endoscopic variceal ligation not feasible) should be performed. Antibiotic prophylaxis must be regarded as an integral part of the treatment of acute variceal bleeding and should be started at admission and maintained for at least 7 d. In case of failure to control the acute bleeding, rescue therapies should be immediately started. Shunt therapies (especially transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt) are very effective at controlling treatment failures after an acute variceal bleeding. Therapeutic developments and increasing knowledge in the prognosis of this complication may allow optimization of the management strategy by adapting the different treatments to the expected risk of complications for each patient in the near future. Theoretically, this approach would allow the initiation of early aggressive treatments in high-risk patients and spare low-risk individuals unnecessary procedures. Current research efforts will hopefully clarify this hypothesis and help to further improve the outcomes of the severe complication of cirrhosis.

Blood products, volume control, and renal support in the coagulopathy of liver disease

Plasma-based products are commonly used in patients who have chronic liver disease to treat perceived coagulopathy despite unproven efficacy and potentially severe risks, such as transfusion-related acute lung injury, which carries a high mortality rate. Moreover, volume expansion may acutely worsen portal hypertension and increase bleeding from the collateral portal vascular bed. Although factor replacement therapy may be warranted in selected situations, its use should be restricted because of the limitations of target tests, such as international normalized ratio, which poorly reflects presence of bleeding diatheses in patients who have cirrhosis. Renal replacement therapies are frequent adjuncts in patients who have cirrhosis and are acutely decompensated, and may correct uremia-related bleeding diathesis and assist in controlling vascular volume, although they are generally limited to use as a bridge to liver transplantation. Novel extracorporeal therapies are emerging and may also have significant interaction with the hemostatic system. Volume contraction and blood conservation therapies are relatively new and promising approaches to reduce use of blood products in liver transplantation.

Somatostatin analogues for acute bleeding oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Somatostatin and its derivatives are sometimes used for emergency treatment of bleeding oesophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis of the liver.

OBJECTIVES

To study whether somatostatin or its analogues improve survival or reduce the need for blood transfusions in patients with bleeding oesophageal varices.

SEARCH STRATEGY

PubMed and The Cochrane Library were searched (November 2007). Reference lists of publications, contacts with authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials comparing somatostatin or analogues with placebo or no treatment in patients suspected of acute or recent bleeding from oesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The outcome measures extracted were: mortality, blood transfusions, use of balloon tamponade, initial haemostasis and rebleeding. Intention-to-treat analyses including all randomised patients were conducted if possible; a random-effects analysis was preferred if there was significant heterogeneity between the trials (P < 0.10). The trials were divided in two groups: trials with a low risk of bias, which had concealed allocation of patients and were double-blind, and other trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials (2588 patients). The drugs did not reduce mortality significantly (relative risk 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.25, for the trials with a low risk of bias, and 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01, for the other trials). Units of blood transfused were 0.7 (0.2 to 1.1) less with drugs in the trials with a low risk of bias and 1.5 (0.9 to 2.0) less in the other trials. Number of patients failing initial haemostasis was reduced, relative risk 0.68 (0.54 to 0.87). Number of patients with rebleeding was not significantly reduced for the trials with a low risk of bias, relative risk 0.84 (0.52 to 1.37) while it was substantially reduced in the other trials, relative risk 0.36 (0.19 to 0.68). Use of balloon tamponade was rarely reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The need for blood transfusions corresponded to one half unit of blood saved per patient. It is doubtful whether this effect is worthwhile. The findings do not suggest a need for further placebo-controlled trials of the type reviewed here. A large placebo controlled trial enrolling thousands of patients is needed if one wishes to rule out the possibility that a worthwhile effect on mortality might have been overlooked.

The management of portal hypertension: rational basis, available treatments and future options

Variceal bleeding is the last step in a chain of events initiated by an increase in portal pressure, followed by the development and progressive dilation of varices until these finally rupture and bleed. This sequence of events might be prevented - and reversed - by achieving a sufficient decrease in portal pressure. A different approach is the use of local endoscopic treatments at the varices. This article reviews the rationale for the management of patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, the current recommendations for the prevention and treatment of variceal bleeding, and outlines the unsolved issues and the perspectives for the future opened by new research developments.