Endoscopic variceal ligation plus nadolol and sucralfate compared with ligation alone for the prevention of variceal rebleeding: a prospective, randomized trial

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Propranolol Use During Ligation Program for Secondary Prophylaxis of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) plus nonselective β-blockers (NSBB) is the standard of care for secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB). This trial aimed to compare the rebleeding rates between EVL plus NSBB till eradication of esophageal varices (EEV) and EVL plus long-term NSBB.

METHODS

After control of acute EVB, patients with cirrhosis were randomized into 2 groups, with group A patients receiving EVL plus propranolol till EEV, while group B patients received standard of care with continuation of propranolol. Recurrent varices were ligated at follow-up endoscopy in both groups.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 23.0 months in group A (n = 106) and 23.6 months in group B (n = 106). Twelve patients (11.3%) in group A and 11 (10.4%) in group B had recurrent EVB. The difference in rebleeding rates and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was 0.9% (-7.5% to 9.3%). The upper 95% CI bound of the difference was within the margin of 13.2%, and the noninferiority of group A to group B was established. Thirty-eight patients (35.8%) in group A and 40 (37.7%) in group B had further decompensation, with the difference (95% CI) of -1.9% (-14.9% to 11.1%). Twenty-four patients (22.6%) in group A and 26 (24.5%) in group B expired, with the difference (95% CI) in mortality rates of -1.9% (-13.3% to 9.5%).

DISCUSSION

EVL plus propranolol till EEV was noninferior to EVL plus continuing propranolol in secondary prophylaxis of EVB, but the impact on further decompensation and transplantation-free survival deserved further investigation.

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

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

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

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

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for Liver Cirrhosis 2020

The first edition of the clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis was published in 2010, and the second edition was published in 2015 by the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE). The revised third edition was recently published in 2020. This version has become a joint guideline by the JSGE and the Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH). In addition to the clinical questions (CQs), background questions (BQs) are new items for basic clinical knowledge, and future research questions (FRQs) are newly added clinically important items. Concerning the clinical treatment of liver cirrhosis, new findings have been reported over the past 5 years since the second edition. In this revision, we decided to match the international standards as much as possible by referring to the latest international guidelines. Newly developed agents for various complications have also made great progress. In comparison with the latest global guidelines, such as the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), we are introducing data based on the evidence for clinical practice in Japan. The flowchart for nutrition therapy was reviewed to be useful for daily medical care by referring to overseas guidelines. We also explain several clinically important items that have recently received focus and were not mentioned in the last editions. This digest version describes the issues related to the management of liver cirrhosis and several complications in clinical practice. The content begins with a diagnostic algorithm, the revised flowchart for nutritional therapy, and refracted ascites, which are of great importance to patients with cirrhosis. In addition to the updated antiviral therapy for hepatitis B and C liver cirrhosis, the latest treatments for non-viral cirrhosis, such as alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (ASH/NASH) and autoimmune-related cirrhosis, are also described. It also covers the latest evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of liver cirrhosis complications, namely gastrointestinal bleeding, ascites, hepatorenal syndrome and acute kidney injury, hepatic encephalopathy, portal thrombus, sarcopenia, muscle cramp, thrombocytopenia, pruritus, hepatopulmonary syndrome, portopulmonary hypertension, and vitamin D deficiency, including BQ, CQ and FRQ. Finally, this guideline covers prognosis prediction and liver transplantation, especially focusing on several new findings since the last version. Since this revision is a joint guideline by both societies, the same content is published simultaneously in the official English journal of JSGE and JSH.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis 2020

The first edition of the clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis was published in 2010, and the second edition was published in 2015 by the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE). The revised third edition was recently published in 2020. This version has become a joint guideline by the JSGE and the Japanese Society of Hepatology (JSH). In addition to the clinical questions (CQs), background questions (BQs) are new items for basic clinical knowledge, and future research questions (FRQs) are newly added clinically important items. Concerning the clinical treatment of liver cirrhosis, new findings have been reported over the past 5 years since the second edition. In this revision, we decided to match the international standards as much as possible by referring to the latest international guidelines. Newly developed agents for various complications have also made great progress. In comparison with the latest global guidelines, such as the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), we are introducing data based on the evidence for clinical practice in Japan. The flowchart for nutrition therapy was reviewed to be useful for daily medical care by referring to overseas guidelines. We also explain several clinically important items that have recently received focus and were not mentioned in the last editions. This digest version describes the issues related to the management of liver cirrhosis and several complications in clinical practice. The content begins with a diagnostic algorithm, the revised flowchart for nutritional therapy, and refracted ascites, which are of great importance to patients with cirrhosis. In addition to the updated antiviral therapy for hepatitis B and C liver cirrhosis, the latest treatments for non-viral cirrhosis, such as alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (ASH/NASH) and autoimmune-related cirrhosis, are also described. It also covers the latest evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of liver cirrhosis complications, namely gastrointestinal bleeding, ascites, hepatorenal syndrome and acute kidney injury, hepatic encephalopathy, portal thrombus, sarcopenia, muscle cramp, thrombocytopenia, pruritus, hepatopulmonary syndrome, portopulmonary hypertension, and vitamin D deficiency, including BQ, CQ and FRQ. Finally, this guideline covers prognosis prediction and liver transplantation, especially focusing on several new findings since the last version. Since this revision is a joint guideline by both societies, the same content is published simultaneously in the official English journal of JSGE and JSH.

Secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated 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 of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for secondary prevention 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 until December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and a previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

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 of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.

Comparison of Therapies for Secondary Prophylaxis of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhosis: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

The decision regarding the optimal secondary prophylactic treatment for esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) in hepatic cirrhosis is controversial. A network meta-analysis was conducted to assess the benefits of various treatments for the secondary prophylaxis of EVB in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

A thorough examination of databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials, was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials up to December 2019. Key primary outcomes included mortality and rebleeding. Within the identified databases, a network meta-analysis was performed. Results were expressed by using a 95% credible interval (CrI) and odds ratios (ORs). The quality of results was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

FINDINGS

Forty-eight trials with 4415 participants with cirrhosis and portal hypertension who had a history of recent variceal bleeding were included. Carvedilol ranked first (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA], 87.4%) in overall survival, and some advantage was suggested; however, the findings were not statistically significant, compared with endoscopic variceal ligation + nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB) (OR, 0.59; CrI, 0.28, 1.3), NSBB + isosorbide mononitrate (OR, 0.67; CrI, 0.33, 1.4), and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) (OR, 0.52; CrI, 0.24, 1.1). NSBB + isosorbide mononitrate (SUCRA, 63.9%) ranked higher than NSBB + endoscopic variceal ligation (SUCRA, 49.6%) in reducing mortality. TIPS (SUCRA, 98.8%) ranked higher than other treatments in reducing rebleeding but did not confer any survival benefit.

IMPLICATIONS

TIPS ranks first in preventing rebleeding of secondary prophylaxis of EVB and carvedilol shows outstanding efficacy in improving survival. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: identifier CRD42019131814.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Use of nonselective β blockers after variceal eradication in cirrhotic patients undergoing secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding: a critical review of current evidence

Nonselective β blockers (NSBBs) combined with esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) are recommended for secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) in cirrhotic patients according to the current practice guidelines and consensus. However, until now, there is a paucity of recommendations regarding the use of NSBBs in cirrhotic patients who achieved variceal eradication. In this review paper, we firstly introduced a case who achieved variceal eradication after additional use of NSBBs for secondary prophylaxis of EVB and then did not require further endoscopic therapy during repeated endoscopic surveillance, and subsequently discuss the importance of NSBBs for secondary prophylaxis of EVB, the effect of NSBBs after variceal eradication, adherence to NSBBs, screening for variceal recurrence, and timing of endoscopic surveillance after variceal eradication.

Adherence to surveillance endoscopy following hospitalization for index esophageal variceal hemorrhage

AIM

To investigate patient adherence to surveillance endoscopy after index esophageal variceal hemorrhage and the extent to which adherence influences outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of patients with cirrhosis admitted to the medical intensive care unit between 2000 and 2014 for first time esophageal variceal hemorrhage treated with endoscopic variceal ligation who were subsequently discharged and scheduled for surveillance endoscopy at our medical center. Demographic and clinical data were obtained through the medical records, including etiology of cirrhosis, completion of variceal obliteration, attendance at surveillance endoscopy, zip code of primary residence, distance from home to hospital, insurance status, rehospitalization for variceal hemorrhage, beta-blocker at discharge, pharmacologically treated psychiatric disorder, and transplant free survival.

RESULTS

Of 99 consecutive survivors of esophageal variceal bleeding, the minority (33) completed variceal obliteration and fewer (12) adhered to annual surveillance. Completion of variceal obliteration was associated with fewer rehospitalizations for variceal rebleeding (27% vs 56%, P = 0.0099) and when rehospitalizations occurred, they occurred later in those who had completed obliteration (median 259 d vs 207 d, P = 0.0083). Incomplete adherence to endoscopic surveillance was associated with more rehospitalizations for variceal rebleeding compared to those fully adherent to annual endoscopic surveillance (51% vs 17%, P = 0.0328). Those adherent to annual surveillance were more likely to be insured privately or through Medicare compared to those who did not attend post-hospital discharge endoscopy (100% vs 63%, P = 0.0119).

CONCLUSION

Most patients do not complete variceal obliteration after index esophageal variceal hemorrhage and fewer adhere to endoscopic surveillance, particularly the uninsured and those insured with Medicaid.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

SUMMARY

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

Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension

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

Stratifying risk in the prevention of recurrent variceal hemorrhage: Results of an individual patient meta-analysis

Endoscopic variceal ligation plus beta-blockers (EVL+BB) is currently recommended for variceal rebleeding prophylaxis, a recommendation that extends to all patients with cirrhosis with previous variceal bleeding irrespective of prognostic stage. Individualizing patient care is relevant, and in published studies on variceal rebleeding prophylaxis, there is a lack of information regarding response to therapy by prognostic stage. This study aimed at comparing EVL plus BB with monotherapy (EVL or BB) on all-source rebleeding and mortality in patients with cirrhosis and previous variceal bleeding stratified by cirrhosis severity (Child A versus B/C) by means of individual time-to-event patient data meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials. The study used individual data on 389 patients from three trials comparing EVL plus BB versus BB and 416 patients from four trials comparing EVL plus BB versus EVL. Compared with BB alone, EVL plus BB reduced overall rebleeding in Child A (incidence rate ratio 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.89; P = 0.025) but not in Child B/C, without differences in mortality. The effect of EVL on rebleeding was different according to Child (P for interaction <0.001). Conversely, compared with EVL, EVL plus BB reduced rebleeding in both Child A and B/C, with a significant reduction in mortality in Child B/C (incidence rate ratio 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.85; P = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Outcomes of therapies to prevent variceal rebleeding differ depending on cirrhosis severity: in patients with preserved liver function (Child A), combination therapy is recommended because it is more effective in preventing rebleeding, without modifying survival, while in patients with advanced liver failure (Child B/C), EVL alone carries an increased risk of rebleeding and death compared with combination therapy, underlining that BB is the key element of combination therapy. (Hepatology 2017;66:1219-1231).

Combination therapy versus pharmacotherapy, endoscopic variceal ligation, or the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt alone in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Patients with liver cirrhosis and variceal hemorrhage are at increased risk of rebleeding. We performed a meta-analysis toassess the clinical efficacy of combination therapy (pharmacotherapy and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL)) compared with pharmacotherapy, EVL, or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) alone in the prevention of rebleeding and mortality. A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, up until November 2016, identified relevant randomized controlled trials. Data analysis was performed using Stata 12.0. Regarding overall mortality, combination therapy was as effective as EVL, pharmacotherapy, and TIPS (relative risk (RR) = 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-1.08, RR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.68-1.63, and RR=1.39, 95% CI: 0.92-2.09, respectively). Combination therapy was as effective as EVL and pharmacotherapy alone in reducing blood-related mortality (RR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.15-1.25, and RR=0.42, 95% CI: 0.17-1.06), whereas TIPS was more effective than combination therapy (RR=5.66, 95% CI: 1.02-31.40). This was also the case for rebleeding; combination therapy was more effective than EVL and pharmacotherapy alone (RR=0.57, 95% CI: 0.41-0.79, and RR=0.65, 95% CI: 0.48-0.88), whereas TIPS was more effective than combination therapy (RR=9.42, 95% CI: 2.99-29.65). Finally, regarding rebleeding from esophageal varices, combination therapy was as effective as EVL alone (RR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.33-1.06) and was more effective than pharmacotherapy alone (RR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.40-0.85), although was less effective than TIPS (RR=2.20, 95% CI: 1.22-3.99). TIPS was recommended as the first choice of therapy in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding.

The 35-year odyssey of beta blockers in cirrhosis: any gender difference in sight?

Cirrhosis is the end-stage of chronic liver disease and leads to the development of portal hypertension and its complications such as esophagogastric varices. Non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) are the keystone for the treatment of portal hypertension since the 1980s and, over the decades, several studies have confirmed their beneficial effect on the prevention of variceal (re)bleeding. Pharmacological studies showed effects of gender, sex hormones, oral contraceptives, and pregnancy on cytochrome P450 (CYPs) enzymes that metabolise NSBB, suggesting that gender differences might exist in the effect of NSBB. In this review, we focused on the 35-year knowledge about the use of beta blockers in cirrhosis and potential gender differences. We specifically examined the role of NSBB in pre-primary, primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, compared two commonly used NSBB (i.e., Propranolol and Carvedilol), and present the current controversies about the window of treatment in advanced cirrhosis with a specific focus on gender differences in NSBB effects. NSBB are not currently recommended in pre-primary prophylaxis of varices mainly because of lack of proven efficacy. On the other hand, NSBB are strongly recommended in patient with cirrhosis as primary (as alternative to endoscopic band ligation, EBL) and secondary prophylaxis (in addition to EBL) of variceal bleeding. To date, no studies have focused specifically on the effect of gender on NSBB treatment. Data extrapolated from clinical studies show that gender was neither a risk factor for the development of varices nor associated with a different response to treatment in primary or secondary prophylaxis. According to the available guidelines, no different, gender-based treatment for portal hypertension is recommended.

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

GOALS

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

BACKGROUND

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

STUDY

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Esophageal Rupture After Endoscopic Banding Ligation for Esophageal Varices Bleeding

A 39-year-old man with esophageal varices bleeding received 2 endoscopic banding ligations within 10 days. Unfortunately, esophageal rupture developed after the second treatment. The patient's history was reported and relevant literatures were reviewed.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Propranolol associated with endoscopic band ligation reduces recurrence of esophageal varices for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding: a randomized-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the recurrence of esophageal varices (EVs) after endoscopic band ligation (EBL) associated with propranolol (PP) versus EBL alone.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty-six cirrhotic outpatients (EBL group, n=32 and EBL+PP group, n=34) with high-risk EVs without previous bleeding were studied.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was recurrence of EV. The secondary outcomes were EV eradication, bleeding before EV eradication, mortality, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Demographic characteristics and the initial endoscopic findings were similar. EV eradication was achieved in all patients. Three patients presented gastrointestinal bleeding before variceal eradication, two in the EBL group and one in the EBL+PP group (P=0.13). Six patients died (liver failure), two in the EBL group and four in the EBL+PP group (P=0.27). Twelve (38%) patients in the EBL group and three (9%) patients in the EBL+PP group had variceal recurrence. The risk of recurrence of EVs after eradication was significantly higher among patients in the EBL group (P=0.003).

CONCLUSION

EBL alone and EBL+PP were effective in the primary prophylaxis of bleeding from EVs in cirrhotic patients (EV eradication, bleeding before EV eradication, mortality, and adverse events were similar in both groups). However, variceal recurrence was lower in the EBL+PP group than band ligation alone.

Management of variceal and nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis

Acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage remains the most common medical emergency managed by gastroenterologists. Causes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in patients with liver cirrhosis can be grouped into two categories: the first includes lesions that arise by virtue of portal hypertension, namely gastroesophageal varices and portal hypertensive gastropathy; and the second includes lesions seen in the general population (peptic ulcer, erosive gastritis, reflux esophagitis, Mallory-Weiss syndrome, tumors, etc.). Emergency upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is the standard procedure recommended for both diagnosis and treatment of UGIB. The endoscopic treatment of choice for esophageal variceal bleeding is band ligation of varices. 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 same time as endoscopy. Bleeding from portal hypertensive gastropathy is less frequent, usually chronic and treatment options include β-blocker therapy, injection therapy and interventional radiology. The standard of care of UGIB in patients with cirrhosis includes careful resuscitation, preferably in an intensive care setting, medical and endoscopic therapy, early consideration for placement of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and, sometimes, surgical therapy or hepatic transplant.

Drugs plus ligation to prevent rebleeding in cirrhosis: an updated systematic review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Combined therapy with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and β-blockers ± isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) is currently recommended to prevent variceal rebleeding. However, the role of this combined therapy has been challenged by some studies. We performed a systematic review to assess the value of combined therapy with EVL and β-blockers ± ISMN as compared with each treatment alone to prevent rebleeding.

METHODS

Databases, references and meeting abstracts were searched to retrieve randomized trials comparing combined therapy with EVL and β-blockers ± ISMN vs either treatment alone, to prevent variceal rebleeding in cirrhosis. Random-effects model was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We identified five studies comparing EVL alone or combined with drugs, including a total of 476 patients. Combination therapy reduced overall rebleeding [risk ratios (RR) = 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.28-0.69], and showed a trend towards lower mortality (RR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.33-1.03), without increasing complications. We identified four trials comparing drugs alone or associated with EVL, including 409 patients. All used β-blockers plus ISMN. Variceal rebleeding decreased with combined therapy (P < 0.01) but rebleeding from oesophageal ulcers increased (P = 0.01). Overall, there was a trend towards lower rebleeding (RR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.58-1.00) without effect on mortality (RR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.90-1.70).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of drug therapy to EVL improves the efficacy of EVL alone. However, the addition of EVL to β-blockers and ISMN achieves a non-significant decrease of rebleeding with no effect on mortality. Although combination therapy with EVL plus β-blockers ± ISMN is adequate to prevent rebleeding, β-blockers + ISMN alone may be a valid alternative.

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.

Secondary prophylaxis for esophageal variceal bleeding

Combination therapy with beta-blockers and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the standard prophylaxis of esophageal variceal rebleeding in cirrhosis. Beta-blockers are the backbone of combination therapy, since their benefit extend to other complications of portal hypertension. EBL carries the risk of post-banding ulcer bleeding, which explains why overall rebleeding is reduced when beta-blockers are added to EBL, and not when EBL is added to beta-blockers. TIPS is the rescue treatment, but it could be considered as first choice in patients that first bleed while on beta-blockers, those with contraindications to beta-blockers or with refractory ascites, and those with fundal varices.

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.

Management of end-stage liver disease

Patients with cirrhosis who experience hepatic decompensation, such as the development of ascites, SBP, variceal hemorrhage, or hepatic encephalopathy, or who develop HCC, are at a higher risk of mortality. Management should be focused on the prevention of recurrence of complications, and these patients should be referred for consideration of liver transplantation.

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.

Portal hypertension and gastrointestinal bleeding: Diagnosis, prevention and management

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

Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Patients with Portal Hypertension

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

Management of varices in patients with cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding remains a life-threatening condition with a 6-week mortality rate of ∼20%. Prevention of variceal bleeding can be achieved using nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic band ligation (EBL), with NSBBs as the first-line treatment. EBL should be reserved for cases of intolerance or contraindications to NSBBs. Although NSBBs cannot be used to prevent varices, if the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is ≤10 mmHg, prognosis is excellent. Survival after acute variceal bleeding has improved over the past three decades, but patients with Child-Pugh grade C cirrhosis remain at greatest risk. Vasoactive drugs combined with endoscopic therapy and antibiotics are the best therapeutic strategy for these patients. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) should be used in patients with uncontrolled bleeding or those who are likely to have difficult-to-control bleeding. Rebleeding from varices occurs in ∼60% of patients 1-2 years after the initial bleeding episode, with a mortality rate of 30%. Secondary prophylaxis should start at day 6 after initial bleeding using a combination of NSBBs and EBL. TIPS with polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents are the preferred option in patients who fail combined treatment with NSBBs and EBL. Despite the improvement in patient survival, further studies are needed to direct the management of patients with gastro-oesophageal varices and variceal bleeding.

[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.

Controlled trial of ligation plus vasoconstrictor versus proton pump inhibitor in the control of acute esophageal variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic therapy combined with vasoconstrictor was generally recommended to treat acute variceal bleeding. However, up to 30% of patients may still encounter treatment failure.

OBJECTIVES

This trial was to evaluate the efficacy of combination with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) infusion in patients with acute variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Cirrhotic patients presenting with acute esophageal variceal bleeding were rescued by emergency EVL. Soon after arresting of bleeding varices, eligible subjects were randomized to two groups. Vasoconstrictor group received either somatostatin or terlipressin infusion. PPI group received either omeprazole or pantoprazole. End points were initial hemostasis, very early rebleeding rate, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were enrolled in vasoconstrictor group and 58 patients in PPI group. Both groups were comparable in baseline data. Initial hemostasis was achieved in 98% in vasoconstrictor group and 100% in PPI group (P = 1.0). Very early rebleeding within 48-120 h occurred in one patient (2%) in vasoconstrictor group and one patient (2%) in the PPI group (P = 1.0). Treatment failure was 4% in vasoconstrictor group and 2% in PPI group (P = 0.95). Adverse events occurred in 33 patients (55%) in vasoconstrictor group and three patients (6%) in PPI group (P < 0.001). Two patients in vasoconstrictor group and one patient in PPI group encountered esophageal ulcer bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

After successful control of acute variceal bleeding by EVL, adjuvant therapy with PPI infusion was similar to combination with vasoconstrictor infusion in terms of initial hemostasis, very early rebleeding rate, and associated with fewer adverse events.

Recent trends in the endoscopic management of variceal bleeding in children

Variceal bleeding results in significant morbidity and mortality in both children and adults. The guidelines for the management of variceal bleeding are well established in adults but not in children as there have been insufficient pediatric studies of this disorder. In addition, the adult guidelines for treatment of variceal bleeding cannot be applied directly to children as the etiology and natural course of this disease differs between children and adults. Examples of recommended treatments in children include endoscopic variceal ligation as secondary prophylaxis for biliary atresia whereas a meso-Rex shunt operation for extrahepatic portal vein obstruction. In this review, we discuss prophylaxis options and some technical aspects of endoscopic management for variceal bleeding in children.

Randomized, controlled trial of carvedilol versus nadolol plus isosorbide mononitrate for the prevention of variceal rebleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Carvedilol has been shown to be more effective than propranolol in decreasing portal pressure. Sufficient data from controlled trials remains limited. This trial compared the relative safety and efficacy between carvedilol and nadolol plus isosorbide mononitrate in preventing variceal rebleeding.

METHODS

After successful control of acute esophageal variceal bleeding, eligible patients were randomized to the carvedilol group, 61 patients, using carvedilol 6.25-12.5 mg daily or the N + I group, 60 patients, using nadolol 40-80 mg plus isorsorbide-5-mononitrate 20 mg daily. The end points were rebleeding from varices, adverse events or death.

RESULTS

After a median follow up of 30 months, recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding developed in 37 patients (61%) in the carvedilol group and 37 patients (62%) in the N + I group (P = 0.90). Recurrent bleeding from esophageal varices occurred in 31 patients (51%) in the carvedilol group and in 26 patients (43%) in the N + I group (P = 0.46). Recurrent bleeding from gastric varices occurred in two patients (3%) in the carvedilol group and in eight patients (13%) in the N + I group (P = 0.05). Severe adverse events occurred in one patient in the carvedilol group and 17 patients in the N + I group (P < 0.0001). Fifteen patients of the carvedilol group and 17 patients in the N + I group died (P = 0.83). Two patients in the carvedilol group and three patients in the N + I group died of variceal bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Carvedilol was as effective as nadolol plus isorsorbide-5 -mononitrate mononitrate in the prevention of gastroesophageal variceal rebleeding with fewer severe adverse events and similar survival.

Efficacy of endoscopic variceal ligation combined with partial splenic embolization for the treatment of esophageal varices

AIM: To assess the efficacy of endoscopic variceal ligation combined with partial splenic embolization for the treatment of esophageal varices.

METHODS: The patients were divided into two groups, those who underwent endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) combined with partial splenic embolization (PSE) and endoscopic variceal ligation only. The cure rate, recurrence rate, and rebleeding rate of esophageal varices were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: At 6 and 12 mo after treatment, the cure rate was significantly higher (83.9% vs 60.5%, 71.0% vs 45.9%, P = 0.033, 0.038) and the recurrence rate was significantly lower (12.9% vs 34.2%, 22.6% vs 48.6%, P = 0.041, 0.026) in the combination group than in the EVL group. At 12 mo after treatment, the rebleeding rate was significantly lower in the combination group than in the EVL group (9.7% vs 32.4%, P = 0.024).

CONCLUSION: The medium and long-term efficacy of endoscopic variceal ligation combined with partial splenic embolization for esophageal varices is better than that of endoscopic variceal ligation alone, and the combination treatment was associated with a higher cure rate and lower recurrence rate and rebleeding rate.

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.

Patients whose first episode of bleeding occurs while taking a β-blocker have high long-term risks of rebleeding and death

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients who have their first episode of variceal bleeding despite primary prophylaxis with a nonselective β-adrenergic receptor antagonist (also called a nonselective β-blocker [NSBB]) receive additional treatment by endoscopic band ligation to prevent further bleeding. However, little is known about their long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We collected data on 89 consecutive patients with cirrhosis who were admitted to the Liver Unit of Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, with acute esophageal variceal bleeding between June 2007 and February 2011. Thirty-four patients were receiving primary prophylaxis with NSBBs when they had their first episode of variceal bleeding, whereas 55 were not receiving NSBBs (controls). All patients were subsequently treated with a combination of endoscopic band ligation and NSBBs. Patients were examined after 1, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter until 2 years.

RESULTS

After 2 years, a greater proportion of patients who had their first episode of bleeding while on NSBBs had further bleeding, compared with controls (48% vs 24%; P = .01). Primary prophylaxis with NSBBs and serum levels of bilirubin were independent predictors of rebleeding. Overall, 11 patients died, and 5 underwent liver transplantation. Liver transplantation-free survival was lower among patients who had their first episode of bleeding while taking NSBBs (66% vs 88% for controls; P = .02). Primary prophylaxis with NSBBs and Child-Pugh class were independently associated with liver transplantation-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who have their first episode of variceal bleeding while on primary prophylaxis with a β-blocking agent have an increased risk of further bleeding and death, despite adding endoscopic band ligation. These patients possibly require alternative treatment approaches.

Meta-analysis: banding ligation and medical interventions for the prevention of rebleeding from oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

In patients with oesophageal varices, the combination of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and medical therapy is recommended as standard of care for prevention of rebleeding. The results of previous meta-analyses on this topic are equivocal.

AIM

To assess the effects of EVL plus medical therapy vs. monotherapy (EVL or medical therapy alone) for secondary prevention in oesophageal varices.

METHODS

Electronic and manual searches were combined. The primary outcome measures were overall rebleeding (variceal and nonvariceal) and mortality. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed with subgroup, sensitivity, regression and sequential analyses to identify sources of intertrial heterogeneity and the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Nine randomised trials were included. In total, 442 patients were randomised to combination therapy and 513 to monotherapy. Combination therapy reduced rebleeding (RR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.54-0.85; number needed to treat eight patients). The result was confirmed in sequential and regression analyses, but not when limiting the analysis to trials with adequate selection bias control. No effect on overall mortality was identified (RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.65-1.21). Combination therapy reduced bleeding-related mortality (RR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.27-0.99; number needed to treat 33 patients) and the risk of rebleeding from oesophageal varices. Combination therapy increased the risk of serious adverse events in fixed, but not in random-effects meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of endoscopic variceal ligation and medical therapy reduce the risk of rebleeding, but not overall mortality. Additional research is needed to determine why reduced rebleeding rates do not lead to reduced mortality.

Efficacy of non-selective β-blockers as adjunct to endoscopic prophylactic treatment for gastric variceal bleeding: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Gastric variceal obturation (GVO) therapy is the current treatment of choice for gastric variceal bleeding (GVB). However, the efficacy of non-selective β-blockers (NSBB) in the secondary prevention of GVB is still debatable. This study aimed at evaluating the efficacy of additional NSBB to repeated GVO in the secondary prevention of GVB.

METHODS

From April 2007 to March 2011, 95 patients with GVB after primary hemostasis using GVO were enrolled. Repeated GVO were performed until GV eradication. Forty-eight and 47 patients were randomized into the GVO alone group (Group A) and the GVO+NSBB group (Group B), respectively. Primary outcomes in terms of re-bleeding and overall survival were analyzed by multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 18.10 months in group A, 26 patients bled and 20 died. In group B, 22 patients bled and 22 died after a mean follow-up of 20.29 months. The overall re-bleeding and survival rates analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method were not different between the two groups (p=0.336 and 0.936, respectively). The model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and main portal vein thrombosis (MPT) were independent determinants of re-bleeding while MPT and re-bleeding were independent factors of mortality by time-dependent Cox-regression model. Asthenia was the most common adverse event and was higher in group B (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding NSBB therapy to repeated GVO provides no benefit for the secondary prevention of bleeding and mortality in patients with GVB.