Randomized study comparing banding and propranolol to prevent initial variceal hemorrhage in cirrhotics with high-risk esophageal varices

Combination of carvedilol with variceal band ligation in prevention of first variceal bleed in Child-Turcotte-Pugh B and C cirrhosis with high-risk oesophageal varices: the 'CAVARLY TRIAL'

OBJECTIVES

Beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal band ligation (VBL) have been preferred therapies for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. However, the choice of therapy in patients with advanced liver disease with high-risk varices is not clear. A comparison of these therapies alone or in combination to prevent the first variceal bleed in advanced cirrhosis patients was carried out.

DESIGN

330 Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) B and C cirrhosis patients, with 'high-risk' varices were prospectively enrolled (n=110 per group) to receive carvedilol (group A), VBL (group B) or combination (group C). Primary endpoint was reduction in the incidence of first variceal bleed at 12 months. The secondary endpoints included overall mortality, bleed-related mortality, new-onset decompensation, change in hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG) and treatment-related adverse events.

RESULTS

The patients were predominantly males (85.2%), aged 51.4±10.5 years with CTP score of 8.87±1.24, MELD score 15.17±3.35 and HVPG-16.96±3.57 mm Hg. The overall incidence of variceal bleed was 23.8% (n=78) at 1 year. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that the combination arm (group C) significantly reduced the incidence of first variceal bleed by 62.9% as compared with group B (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.192 to 0.716, p<0.003) and by 69.3% as compared with group A (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.163 to 0.578, <0.001). The overall mortality was 13.6% (45/330). The 1-year mortality in group C was lowest among the three groups (A, B, C=20%, 14.5%, 6.3%, p=0.012). Reduction in HVPG (20.8% vs 25.1%, p=0.54) and the rate of non-response to carvedilol (53.4% vs 41.25%, p=0.154) were not different between group A and C patients. The incidence of new-onset ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, shock, and acute kidney injury and postbleed organ failure was also comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSION

In CTP B and C cirrhosis patients with high-risk varices, combination of carvedilol and VBL is more effective than either therapy alone, for primary prevention of variceal bleeding.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03069339.

Endoscopic variceal ligation versus propranolol for the primary prevention of oesophageal variceal bleeding in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: an open-label, two-centre, randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This randomised trial aimed to address whether endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) or propranolol (PPL) is more effective at preventing initial oesophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

DESIGN

Patients with HCC and medium-to-large oesophageal varices (EVs) but without previous EVB were randomised to receive EVL (every 3-4 weeks until variceal eradication) or PPL (up to 320 mg daily) at a 1:1 ratio. Long-term follow-up data on EVB, other upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), non-bleeding liver decompensation, overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) were analysed using competing risk regression.

RESULTS

Between June 2011 and April 2021, 144 patients were randomised to receive EVL (n=72) or PPL (n=72). In the EVL group, 7 patients experienced EVB, and 30 died; in the PPL group, 19 patients had EVB, and 40 died. The EVL group had a lower cumulative incidence of EVB (Gray's test, p=0.009) than its counterpart, with no mortality difference (Gray's test, p=0.085). For patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage A/B, EVL was better than PPL in reducing EVB (p<0.001) and mortality (p=0.003). For patients beyond BCLC stage B, between-group outcomes were similar. Other UGIB, non-bleeding liver decompensation and AEs did not differ between groups. A competing risk regression model confirmed the prognostic value of EVL.

CONCLUSION

EVL is superior to PPL in preventing initial EVB in patients with HCC. The benefits of EVL on EVB and OS may be limited to patients with BCLC stage A/B and not to those with BCLC stage C/D.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01970748.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Nomogram for predicting the risk of gastroesophageal varices after primary endoscopic prophylaxis for variceal hemorrhage in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to identify predictors of non-high-risk gastroesophageal varices and evaluate the probability of the residual high-risk varices in cirrhosis patients after the primary endoscopic treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Medical records of the patients with cirrhosis admitted for primary endoscopic prophylaxis gastroesophageal varices hemorrhage were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into high-risk varices and non-high-risk varices groups according to the endoscopy. A nomogram was developed based on the results of multivariate Cox analyses. Accuracy of this model was validated by the concordance index (Harrell's c-index) and calibration curve.

RESULTS

Altogether 117 patients were enrolled between March 2014 and April 2018. The multivariate Cox analyses identified spleen length <140 mm [odds ratio (OR) = 2.715; P = 0.037), small or medium size of esophageal varices (OR = 4.412; P = 0.017), unaccompanied with gastric varices (OR = 7.025; P = 0.003) and frequency of endoscopic variceal ligation ≥one time per 4 months (OR = 3.834; P = 0.034) as independent factors of non-high-risk varices. All significant predictors were incorporated into a nomogram to predict the residual high-risk varices, which showed a notable accuracy with the concordance index (0.833).

CONCLUSION

The nomogram-based prediction of residual high-risk varices can be used for risk stratification in cirrhosis patients with gastroesophageal varices.

The mortality rate among patients with acute upper GI bleeding (with/without EGD) at Aleppo University Hospital: A retrospective study

Background

acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common medical condition that results in substantial morbidity, mortality, and medical care cost. The mortality rate for patients with acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is 5-10%, and it has not changed much since 1945, despite the development in medicines, endoscopy, intensive care units (ICU), and surgical management. We conduct this study to observe some of the factors that predict death in these patients.

Materials and methods

The Study was conducted at the Internal Medicine Department, Digestive Division, Aleppo University Hospital, between July 2018 and June 2020. The study included all patients with acute upper GI bleeding who were admitted to the digestive division during the study period, or who were admitted by other departments requesting an upper GI endoscopy.

Results

This study involved 234 patients, 137 males (58.55%), 97 females (41.45%).The patients' ages ranged between 17 and 81 years old, and the mean age value ± standard deviation was 57.15 ± 22.89 years old.The number of deaths reached 22, at a rate of 9.40%, 14 male deaths (10.22%), 8 female deaths (8.25%).

Conclusions

in this study we found a moderate inverse relationship between the hemoglobin value at admission and the incidence of death; the lower the hemoglobin value at admission, the higher the probability of patient's death. Also, there is a very significant direct relationship between the number of blood units transfused and the incidence of death, noting that all patients who died had received blood transfusions. Finally, we found a moderate inverse relationship between the arterial blood pressure value at admission and the incidence of death.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Validation of the Expanded Baveno-VI Criteria for Screening Gastroscopy in Asian Patients with Compensated Advanced Chronic Liver Disease

BACKGROUND

The expanded Baveno-VI criteria may further reduce the need for screening gastroscopy compared to Baveno-VI criteria.

AIM

We sought to validate the performance of these criteria in a cohort of compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) patients with predominantly hepatitis B infection.

METHODS

Consecutive cACLD patients from 2006 to 2012 with paired liver stiffness measurements and screening gastroscopy within 1 year were included. The expanded Baveno-VI criteria were applied to evaluate the sensitivity (SS), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for the presence of high-risk varices (HRV).

RESULTS

Among 165 cACLD patients included, 17 (10.3%) had HRV. The commonest etiology of cACLD was chronic hepatitis B (36.4%) followed by NAFLD (20.0%). Application of expanded Baveno-VI criteria avoided more screening gastroscopy (43.6%) as compared to the original Baveno-VI criteria (18.8%) without missing more HRV (1 with both criteria). The overall SS, SP, PPV and NPV of the expanded Baveno-VI criteria in predicting HRV were 94.1%, 48.0%, 17.2% and 98.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Application of the expanded Baveno-VI criteria can safely avoid screening gastroscopy in 43.6% of cACLD patients with an excellent ability to exclude HRV.

Long-term observation in patients with esophageal varices after endoscopic variceal ligation accompanied with 24-hour pH monitoring

AIM

Esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) is usually carried out to decrease the risk of hemorrhage. Several complications have been reported with the procedure, including bleeding from ligation-induced esophageal ulcers or heartburn. However, there is scant evidence for gastroesophageal reflux caused by EVL. The aim of this study was to assess 24-h pH monitoring in the esophagogastric junction before and after EVL and the bleeding rate for 18 months.

METHODS

We undertook this single-center prospective trial in Kitasato University Hospital (Sagamihara, Japan). We included patients with cirrhosis who were Child-Pugh classification A or B, without uncontrollable hepatocellular carcinoma, and had F2 or larger esophageal varices, and/or were red color sign (RC) positive. The study period was from July 2012 through September 2017 for 32 patients enrolled in this study and followed up until March 2019.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were: median Child-Pugh score, 6; and mean age, 64.3 years. Before and after EVL, the median 24-h under pH 4 holding time percentages of all patients were 0.6% (range, 0-5.6%) and 0.95% (range, 0-50.6%), respectively, without a significant difference (P = 0.107). We could not find any G3 or G4 adverse events during this study, and 75% of the patients who had already suffered from moderate gastroesophageal reflux became worse after EVL (P = 0.18) and required antacid therapies. There were no patients with hemorrhage from esophageal varices.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal variceal ligation for esophageal varices did not significantly change gastroesophageal reflux. Therefore, acid suppressive therapy might be unnecessary for patients who do not suffer from gastroesophageal reflux after EVL.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Varices: Esophageal, Gastric, and Rectal

Gastrointestinal varices are associated with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Variceal hemorrhage is a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality, with esophageal and gastric varices the most common source and rectal varices a much less common cause of severe gastrointestinal bleeding. The goals of managing variceal hemorrhage are control of active bleeding and prevention of rebleeding. This article focuses on reviewing the current management strategies, including optimal medical, endoscopic, and angiographic interventions and their clinical outcomes to achieve these goals. Evidence based discussion is used with current references as much as possible.

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

BACKGROUND/AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Wilson disease: symptomatic liver therapy

Wilson disease leads to symptomatic impairment of liver function or liver cirrhosis. Strict adherence to decoppering agents is essential in these patients. Secondary prevention of additional hepatic damage by avoidance of other toxic substances (e.g., alcohol, drugs) and sufficient calorie intake is recommended. Routine examinations in cirrhotic patients include screening for signs of portal hypertension (esophagus varices), development of ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy. Where varices are present, primary or secondary preventive interventions may include treatment with nonselective beta-blockers or variceal ligation, similar to the approach in patients with liver cirrhosis due to other etiologies. For patients presenting with ascites, diuretics are the treatment of choice. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis can be diagnosed by paracentesis and should be treated with antibiotics. Liver cirrhosis can also lead to accumulation of neurotoxins causing hepatic encephalopathy. It is characterized by unspecific neuropsychiatric impairment and is treated with laxatives and nonresorbable antibiotics. The best prophylaxis is regular defecation. Patients with liver cirrhosis are susceptible for bacterial infections of any cause and sepsis is one of the leading causes of death in these patients. In advanced stages of cirrhosis renal function impairment is a common feature. The hepatorenal syndrome shows a high mortality. Where Wilson disease patients have decompensated liver cirrhosis, liver transplantation should be evaluated.

Efficacy of carvedilol versus propranolol versus variceal band ligation for primary prevention of variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Band ligation and propranolol are the current therapies for primary prevention of variceal bleeding. Carvedilol is a rising nonselective beta-blocker used for reducing portal pressure with favorable outcome. The aim of this study to assess the efficacy of carvedilol, propranolol, and band ligation for primary prevention of variceal bleeding based on the effect of each regimen on progression of Child score and portal hypertensive gastropathy after 1 year.

METHODS

The study included 264 cirrhotic patients with medium/large-sized varices who were candidates for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. Patients were randomly divided into three groups: group I: band ligation; group II: propranolol; group III: carvedilol.

RESULTS

Group I showed higher success rate of 75 %, followed by group III with 70.2 % and group II with 65.2 %. Risk of bleeding was comparable between the three groups, with group II carrying the highest rate of complications (34.7 %) followed by group III (14.2 %) and finally group I (5.7 %). After 1 year of follow-up, Child score did not improve in any of the studied groups, while portal hypertensive gastropathy significantly increased in group I but decreased in groups II and III.

CONCLUSIONS

Band ligation is the best treatment option for primary prevention of variceal bleeding with minimal complications. Carvedilol is a good pharmaceutical alternative medicine to propranolol with lesser side-effects. Progress of liver disease as represented by Child score is not affected by any of the primary variceal prophylactic regimens, although medical treatment reduces portal hypertensive gastropathy. Choice of treatment depends on patient will, compliance with treatment, and endoscopist competence.

Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension

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

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.

Risk factors for band-induced ulcer bleeding after prophylactic and therapeutic endoscopic variceal band ligation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVBL) aims to eradicate high-risk oesophageal varices. There is a small risk of precipitating bleeding from EVBL-induced oesophageal ulceration, which is associated with significant mortality. We explore the risk factors and outcome of EVBL-induced ulcer bleeding.

METHODS

Retrospective review of our endoscopy database between 2007 and 2012 identified upper endoscopies during which EVBL was performed. Patient demographics, biochemistry and endoscopic findings were recorded as were the complications of EVBL-induced ulcer bleeding and death.

RESULTS

A total of 749 episodes of EVBL were performed in 347 patients with a mean Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 15.8. In all, 609 procedures were performed for prophylaxis and 140 for acute haemorrhage. There were 21 episodes (2.8% of procedures) of EVBL-induced ulcer bleeding in 18 patients, five of whom subsequently died (28%). On multivariable analysis, acute variceal haemorrhage was the only significant predictor of EVBL-induced ulcer bleeding [odds ratio (OR) 6.25 (2.57-15.14), P<0.0001]. In 609 procedures performed for prophylaxis, the EVBL-induced ulcer bleeding rate was 1.5%, with 22% mortality. In this group, higher MELD score and reflux oesophagitis were associated significantly with EVBL-induced ulcer bleeding [OR 25.53 (2.14-303.26), P=0.010 and OR 1.07 (1.01-1.13), P=0.019, respectively].

CONCLUSION

Our EVBL-induced ulcer bleeding rate was low, but associated with significant mortality. Highest rates were observed following EVBL for acute variceal haemorrhage, for which EVBL is unavoidable. The incidence was lower following prophylactic EVBL, with the MELD score being the predominant risk factor. Reflux oesophagitis requires further investigation as a potentially modifiable risk factor for EVBL-induced ulcer bleeding.

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

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

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding: pharmacological therapy versus endoscopic banding

Variceal bleeding is one of the most feared complications in patients with liver cirrhosis. It continues to be a leading cause of death among patients with liver cirrhosis. Although its prognosis has improved over the last several decades, it still carries substantial mortality. Preventing variceal bleeding has been extensively studied and evaluated in several studies in the recent years and the comparison between the different modalities available to prevent variceal bleeding has been an area of discussion. Currently the two most widely used modalities to prevent variceal bleeding are pharmacologic (non-selective beta-blockers [NSBB]) and endoscopic (variceal band ligation [VBL]) which have replaced sclerotherapy in the recent years. In addition to NSBB and recent carvedilol, different other medications have been evaluated including isosorbide mononitrates, spironolactone and angiotensin blocking agents. Comparing the outcomes and adverse effects of these two modalities has been evaluated in different studies. Some studies have showed superiority of VBL until recently, when carvedilol has been included, however; overall mortality has been similar in most trials. Despite that, NSBB remain the first line treatment, as they are cheaper and relatively effective in preventing both esophageal and gastric bleeding. The following sections discuss the primary prevention of variceal bleeding with a focus on NSBB, carvedilol and VBL.

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.

Is small-bowel capsule endoscopy effective for diagnosis of esophagogastric lesions related to portal hypertension?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Effectiveness of capsule endoscopy (CE) for screening the small bowel in patients with portal hypertension (PHT) has been reported. However, few reports discuss CE detection of specific esophagogastric lesions related to PHT. Thus, we assessed whether CE is useful for detecting such lesions.

METHODS

One hundred nineteen consecutive patients with PHT comprised the study group. All had undergone esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) prior to CE. The diagnostic yield of CE for esophageal varices (EVs), gastric varices (GVs), and portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG) was evaluated. In addition, diagnostic yield in relation to form, location of the varices, grade, and extent of PHG was evaluated.

RESULTS

EVs were found by EGD in 71 patients. The overall diagnostic yield of CE for EVs was 72% (51/71). The diagnostic yield was significantly greater for F2/F3 EVs than for F1 EVs (87% vs 61%, P = 0.03). The diagnostic yield was significantly greater for Lm/Ls EVs than for Li EVs (85% vs 55%, P = 0.01). The diagnostic yield was significantly greater for locus superior/locus medialis EVs than for locus inferior EVs (85% vs 55%, P = 0.01). GVs were found by EGD in 29 patients. Only one case was detected by CE. PHG was found by EGD in 35 patients. The diagnostic yield of CE for PHG was 69% (24/35). There was no difference in diagnostic yield between cases of severe and mild PHG (82% vs 63%, P = 0.44). Diagnostic yield of CE for PHG in the gastric body was significantly greater than that in the fundus (100% vs 48%, P = 0.0009).

CONCLUSION

CE is reliable for diagnosis of F2/F3 and/or Lm/Ls EVs and of PHG in the gastric body.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Variceal and other portal hypertension related bleeding

Variceal bleeding is one of the commonest and most severe complications of liver cirrhosis. Even with the current best medical care, mortality from variceal bleeding is still around 20%. When cirrhosis is diagnosed, varices are present in about 30-40% of compensated patients and in 60% of those who present with ascites. Once varices have been diagnosed, the overall incidence of variceal bleeding is in the order of 25% at two years. Variceal size is the most useful predictor for variceal bleeding, other predictors are severity of liver dysfunction (Child-Pugh classification) and the presence of red wale marks on the variceal wall. The current consensus is that every cirrhotic patient should be endoscopically screened for varices at the time of diagnosis to detect those requiring prophylactic treatment. Non-selective beta-adrenergic blockers (NSBB) and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) have been shown effective in the prevention of first variceal bleeding. The current recommendation for treating acute variceal bleeding is to start vasoactive drug therapy early (ideally during the transferral or to arrival to hospital, even if active bleeding is only suspected) and performing EBL. Once bleeding is controlled, combination therapy with NSBB + EBL should be used to prevent rebleeding. In patients at high risk of treatment failure despite of using this approach, an early covered-TIPS within 72 h (ideally 24 h) should be considered. Data on management of gastric variceal bleeding is limited. No clear recommendation for primary prophylaxis can be done. In acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding, vasoactive agents together with cyanoacrylate (CA) injection seem to be the treatment of choice. Further CA injections and/or NSBB may be used to prevent rebleeding. TIPS or Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration when TIPS is contraindicated may be used as a rescue therapy.

Primary prophylaxis of bleeding from esophageal varices in cirrhosis

Prophylaxis of the first bleeding from esophageal varices became a clinical option more than 20 years ago, and gained a large diffusion in the following years. It is based on the use of nonselective beta-blockers, which decreases portal pressure, or on the eradication of esophageal varices by endoscopic band ligation of varices. In patients with medium or large varices either of these treatments is indicated. In patients with small varices only medical treatment is feasible, and in patients with medium and large varices with contraindication or side-effects due to beta-blockers, only endoscopic band ligation may be used. In this review the rationale and the results of the prophylaxis of bleeding from esophageal varices are discussed.

Efficacy of endoscopic intervention alone versus endoscopic intervention plus propranolol in the prophylaxis of esophageal variceal rebleeding

AIM: To compar e the efficacy of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) or endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) alone versus EVL or EIS plus propranolol in the prophylaxis of esophageal variceal rebleeding.

METHODS: Sixty-nine cirrhotic patients were divided randomly into endoscopic intervention group (EIG, n = 40; EVL or EIS) and combination intervention group (CIG, n = 29; EVL or EIS plus propranolol). The mortality, mortality due to rebleeding, and rate of rebleeding were compared between the two groups. All patients were followed for more than one year. In addition, changes in endoscopic characteristics of esophageal varices were evaluated according to the criterion of the Japan Society for Portal Hypertension.

RESULTS: There were no significantly differences in liver function, routine blood parameters, and serum electrolytes between the two groups. After intervention, the diameter of varices decreased significantly in the EIG group (10.92 ± 2.91 vs 8.45 ± 2.26, P < 0.05), but showed no significance in the CIG group (10.14 ± 2.46 vs 8.95 ± 2.21, P > 0.05). The distance from the proximal end of varices to the fore-tooth (22.79 ± 2.83 vs 24.85 ± 3.96, P < 0.05) and the rate of recurrence of red signs in varices (100% vs 76.19%, P < 0.05) decreased significantly after intervention in the CIG group. The morbidity of gastric varices and portal hypertensive gastropathy were both higher after intervention in the CIG group (10.34% vs 28.10%, P < 0.05; 10.34% vs 42.86%, P < 0.05). The appearance of varices in both groups changed from rosary-like to earthworm-like pattern. The rate of rebleeding between two groups displayed no significant difference (50.00% vs 51.71%, P > 0.05). However, the mortality in the CIG group was significantly lower than that in the EIG group (27.50% vs 7.41%, P < 0.05), and the main cause of death in both groups was upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

CONCLUSION: Endoscopic intervention combined with propranolol can decrease the risk of death and reduce endoscopic re-bleeding in the prevention of esophageal variceal re-bleeding.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

AIM

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Effect of long-term propranolol treatment on hepatocellular carcinoma incidence in patients with HCV-associated cirrhosis

Propranolol bears antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and antiangiogenic properties and antitumoral effects and therefore is potentially active in the prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We retrospectively assessed the impact of propranolol treatment on HCC occurrence in a cohort of 291 patients with compensated viral C (HCV) cirrhosis, prospectively followed and screened for HCC detection. Of the 291 patients included in the cohort, 93 patients [50 males: mean age, 59.5 ± 12 years; body mass index (BMI), 25.7 ± 4.4 kg/m(2); and platelet count, 111 ± 53 Giga/L] developed esophageal varices (OV) or had OV at inclusion and 198 patients (111 males: mean age, 55.8 ± 13 years; BMI, 25.7 ± 5 kg/m(2); platelet count, 137 ± 59 Giga/L) did not. Among patients with OV, 50 received treatment by propranolol. During a median follow-up of 54 months interquartile range (32-82), 61 patients developed an HCC. The 3- and 5-year HCC incidence was 4% and 4%, and 10% and 20% for patients treated and not treated by propranolol, respectively (Gray test, P = 0.03). In multivariate analysis, propranolol treatment was associated with a decrease risk of HCC occurrence [HR, 0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.09-0.65; P = 0.004], and was the only independent predictive factor of HCC occurrence in patients with OV (HR, 0.16; CI, 0.06-0.45; P = 0.0005). The benefit of propranolol was further supported by propensity scores analyses.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective long-term observational study suggests that propranolol treatment may decrease HCC occurrence in patients with HCV cirrhosis. These findings need to be verified by prospective clinical trial.

Capsule endoscopy is not as accurate as esophagogastroduodenoscopy in screening cirrhotic patients for varices

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is the standard technique for screening cirrhotic patients for high-risk varices and other significant upper gastrointestinal lesions (HRVLs). We investigated whether esophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE) is as convenient and accurate as EGD for the detection of HRVLs.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 65 cirrhotic patients without prior upper gastrointestinal bleeding who were examined for varices and HRVLs by ECE and EGD (both procedures were performed on the same day). EGD was performed by 2 physicians (75% of patients were unsedated) who used standard grading for esophageal and gastric varices, portal hypertensive gastropathy, and HRVLs. Coded capsule tracings were read by 2 investigators, blinded to the EGD findings, using standard grading.

RESULTS

The median procedure time for EGD (with or without biopsy collection) was 3 minutes, compared with 20 minutes for ECE. The overall accuracy for diagnosis of esophageal varices was 63.2% ± 5.9%; for detection of esophageal varices red marks was 68.8% ± 5.4%; and for diagnosis of other HRVLs was 51.5% ± 4.2%. The interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of esophageal varices was 90.8%; in the detection of esophageal varices red marks was 86.2%; and in the diagnosis of other HRVLs was 7.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

ECE is not as accurate as EGD in the diagnosis of esophageal varices and red markings or in grading esophageal varices. Moreover, ECE had poor accuracy in grading portal hypertensive gastropathy and detecting ulcers, gastric varices, and other significant upper gastrointestinal lesions. It took significantly longer to perform ECE and interpret the results than for EGD. These findings do not support ECE as a preferred tool for screening esophageal varices and HRVLs.

Long-term administration of PPI reduces treatment failures after esophageal variceal band ligation: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Elective esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) is performed to decrease the risk of variceal hemorrhage. EVL is associated with adverse effects, including post-ligated bleeding, chest pain, and dysphagia. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most potent pharmacological agents for inhibition of gastric acid secretion. However, the long-term effect of PPIs after EVL remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of rabeprazole, a PPI, after variceal eradication by EVL.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, controlled trial in Kitasato University East Hospital. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as variceal hemorrhage or severe medical complications. Between July 2007 and September 2010, 43 patients were randomized into this study and followed up until September 2010.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients in the rabeprazole arm received 10 mg rabeprazole daily after EVL, and 22 patients in the control received no antisecretory treatment from the same stage. Baseline characteristics did not differ between the groups (median Child-Pugh score, 6; median age, 62 years; median follow-up, 18.7 months). The trial was stopped early after an interim analysis showed that the risk of bleeding and failure of rabeprazole treatment was lower than that of no antisecretory treatment with the log-rank test showing a significant difference between the groups (P = 0.007) and a hazard ratio of 0.098 [95% confidence interval, 0.012-0.79 (P = 0.029)].

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term administration of PPIs reduced the risk of treatment failure after EVL. Acid suppression therapy should also be considered as a treatment option after EVL.

Care of the liver transplant candidate

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

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Management of varices in cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

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

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

Portale Hypertension

Während die Pathologie, die zur portalen Hypertension führt, im prähepatischen, hepatischen und posthepatischen venösen Gefäßbett liegen kann, machen die intrahepatischen Erkrankungen mit Abstand den Großteil aus. In unseren Breitengraden ist es die durch Alkoholabusus bedingte ethyltoxische Leberzirrhose, weltweit die durch Infektionen (HCV, HBV) bedingten Zirrhosen. Die chronische Hepatitis C mit ihren Komplikationen (Leberzellversagen, portale Hypertension und hepatozelluläres Karzinom) wird in den kommenden Jahren trotz moderner Therapieverfahren noch an Bedeutung gewinnen.

[Prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding]

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Overview of the methods and therapies for the primary prevention of variceal bleeding

Patients with cirrhosis develop varices at a rate of 5% per year, and a third of patients with high-risk varices will bleed. The mortality associated with variceal haemorrhage is typically 20%, and still exceeds that of myocardial infarction. Current options to prevent the first variceal bleed include noncardioselective beta-blockers or variceal band ligation. In patients with medium-to-large esophageal varices, both therapies reduce the risk of bleeding by 50% or more. The choice of therapy should take into account patient choice and local availability; although for most patients drug therapy is the preferred first-line treatment. There has been recent interest in carvedilol, with promising initial data. Further studies are necessary before universal recommendation. There is no role for drug therapy in patients without varices, and the use of beta-blockers for patients with small varices is controversial.

Controlled trial of ligation plus nadolol versus nadolol alone for the prevention of first variceal bleeding

Both nadolol and ligation have proved to be effective in the prophylaxis of first variceal bleeding. This study was conducted to evaluate the effects and safety of combining nadolol with ligation. Cirrhotic patients with high-risk esophageal varices but without a bleeding history were considered for enrolment. Eligible patients were randomized to receive band ligation plus nadolol (Combined group, 70 patients) or nadolol alone (Nadolol group, 70 patients). In the Combined group multiligators were applied. Patients received regular ligation treatment at an interval of 4 weeks until variceal obliteration. Nadolol was administered at a dose to reduce 25% of the pulse rate in both the Combined group and the Nadolol group. Both groups were comparable in baseline data. In the Combined group 50 patients (71%) achieved variceal obliteration. The mean dose of nadolol was 52 +/- 16 mg in the Combined group and 56 +/- 19 mg in the Nadolol group. During a median follow-up of 26 months, 18 patients (26%) in the Combined group and 13 patients (18%) in the Nadolol group experienced upper gastrointestinal bleeding (P = NS). Esophageal variceal bleeding occurred in 10 patients (14%) in the Combined group and nine patients (13%) in the Nadolol group (P = NS). Adverse events were noted in 48 patients (68%) in the Combined group and 28 patients (40%) in the Nadolol group (P = 0.06). Sixteen patients in each group died.

CONCLUSION

The addition of ligation to nadolol may increase adverse events and did not enhance effectiveness in the prophylaxis of first variceal bleeding.

Role of endoscopy in primary prophylaxis for esophageal variceal bleeding

Cirrhosis is the leading cause of portal hypertension in the Western world. From a clinical standpoint, the most significant consequence of portal hypertension is the development of esophageal varices. Despite the many advances in the management of variceal bleeding, it remains a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension. Primary prophylaxis to prevent the first bleeding episode in patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices is therefore critically important in the management of patients with cirrhosis.

Endoscopic variceal ligation for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal hemorrhage in pre-liver transplant patients

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is widely used to prevent esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with advanced cirrhosis. However, the safety and efficacy of EVL in this setting have not been clearly established. This study included 300 adult patients with cirrhosis on our liver transplant waitlist who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Esophageal varices deemed to be at high risk of bleeding were banded until eradication or transplantation. A retrospective review of patient notes and endoscopy databases was undertaken, and the number of banding episodes, complications, and patient outcomes were recorded. Forty-two of 300 patients presented with or had previous variceal bleeding prior to referral and were excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining 258 patients, 101 underwent a total of 259 banding episodes (2.6 per patient) with a median follow-up post-banding of 18.4 months per patient (a total of 150 patient years). Failed prophylaxis occurred in 2 patients (2%), and there were 3 episodes (1.2%) of acute hematemesis from band-induced ulceration. One patient (1%) had mild esophageal stricturing post-banding without dysphagia. Four of 36 patients (11%) previously found to have moderately sized or larger varices that were not banded presented with hematemesis due to variceal bleeding and were subsequently banded. None of the patients that received banding died because of bleeding or failed to receive a transplant as a result of banding complications. This study shows that in liver transplant candidates, EVL is highly effective in preventing first variceal bleed. Although banding carries a small risk of band-induced bleeding, this rate is low in comparison with the predicted rate of variceal bleeding in this population.