TIPS versus drug therapy in preventing variceal rebleeding in advanced cirrhosis: a randomized controlled trial

French guidelines on TIPS: Indications and modalities

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has become essential in the treatment or prevention of portal hypertension-related complications. In the early 1990s, the primary indication was refractory bleeding. It is now proposed for the treatment of ascites for the prevention of bleeding and in patients with vascular diseases of the liver. Thus, there are a growing number of patients being treated with TIPS all over the world. The broadening of indications, the involvement of multiple stakeholders, the need for an accurate selection, the positioning in relation to transplantation and the lack of standardization in pre-therapeutic assessment, in the procedure itself and in the follow-up have led the board of the French Association for the Study of the Liver to establish recommendations.

Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient: Measurement and Pitfalls

Measurement of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) effectively mirrors the severity of portal hypertension (PH) and offers valuable insights into prognosis of liver disease, including the risk of decompensation and mortality. Additionally, HVPG offers crucial information about treatment response to nonselective beta-blockers and other medications, with its utility demonstrated in clinical trials in patients with PH. Despite the widespread dissemination and validation of noninvasive tests, HVPG still holds a significant role in hepatology. Physicians treating patients with liver diseases should comprehend the HVPG measurement procedure, its applications, and how to interpret the results and potential pitfalls.

Small-Diameter Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt versus Endoscopic Variceal Ligation Plus Propranolol for Variceal Rebleeding in Advanced Cirrhosis

Background Some studies have shown that transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement within 72 hours of admission improves survival in patients at high risk who present with acute variceal bleeding. However, the role of small-diameter covered TIPS in the secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding is still debatable. Purpose To compare the efficacy of 8-mm TIPS and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) plus propranolol in the prevention of variceal rebleeding among participants with advanced cirrhosis. Materials and Methods Between June 2015 and December 2018, participants admitted to the hospital for variceal bleeding were considered for enrollment in this randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov). Participants with Child-Pugh class B or C cirrhosis were randomly assigned to receive an 8-mm covered TIPS or EVL and propranolol. The primary end point was recurrent variceal bleeding assessed using Kaplan-Meier curve analysis. Secondary end points included survival and overt hepatic encephalopathy (HE) assessed using Kaplan-Meier curve analysis. Results A total of 100 participants were enrolled, with 50 randomly assigned to the EVL plus propranolol group (median age, 54 years; IQR, 45-60 years; 29 male, 21 female) and 50 randomly assigned to the TIPS group (median age, 49 years; IQR, 43-56 years; 32 male, 18 female). The median follow-up period was 43.4 months. In the TIPS group, variceal rebleeding risk was reduced compared with variceal rebleeding risk in the EVL plus propranolol group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; 95% CI: 0.14, 0.69; P = .008), but the incidence of overt HE was higher in the TIPS group (30.0% vs 16.0%, P = .03). No differences in survival were observed between the two groups (1-year survival: TIPS, 98.0%; EVL plus propranolol, 92.0%; 3-year survival: TIPS, 94.0%; EVL plus propranolol, 85.7%; HR, 0.52; 95% CI: 0.19, 1.42; P = .22). Conclusion When compared with EVL plus propranolol, 8-mm TIPS led to reduced variceal rebleeding but did not impact overall survival in participants with Child-Pugh class B or C cirrhosis. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02477384 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Barth in this issue.

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/.

Balloon-compression endoscopic injection sclerotherapy versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for esophageal variceal rebleeding

BACKGROUND

In cirrhotic patients, recurrent bleeding after the first episode of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) is common and lethal. The present study was aimed to compare balloon-compression endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (bc-EIS) with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for the prophylaxis of variceal rebleeding.

METHODS

Between June 2020 and September 2022, 81 cirrhotic patients with EVB (42 in the bc-EIS group and 39 in the TIPS group) were evaluated retrospectively. The occurrence of rebleeding, hepatic encephalopathy (HE) or other complications, as well as liver functions and survival rate were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

During the 12 months of follow-up, variceal eradication was achieved in 40 (95.24%) patients of the bc-EIS group after a mean of 1.80 ± 0.94 sessions. TIPS was successfully performed in 39 (100%) patients. No significant difference in the variceal rebleeding rate was observed between bc-EIS and TIPS groups (16.67 vs. 17.95%; p = 0.111). While the bc-EIS group showed significantly decreased incidence of HE (2.38 vs. 17.95%; p < 0.001) and lower level of total bilirubin (p < 0.05) in comparison with the TIPS group. The difference in mortality between the two groups failed to reach statistical significance (0.00 vs. 7.69%; p = 0.107).

CONCLUSION

Bc-EIS is not inferior to TIPS in the survival and control of variceal rebleeding, but associated with decreased risk of HE and liver dysfunction.

To TIPS or Not to TIPS in High Risk of Variceal Rebleeding and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure

Variceal bleeding is a consequence of severe portal hypertension in patients with liver cirrhosis. Although the rate of bleeding has decreased over time, variceal bleeding in the presence of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) carries a high risk of treatment failure and short-term mortality. Treatment and/or removal of precipitating events (mainly bacterial infection and alcoholic hepatitis) and decrease of portal pressure may improve outcome of patients with acute decompensation or ACLF. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPSs), especially in the preemptive situation, have been found to efficiently control bleeding, prevent rebleeding, and reduce short-term mortality. Therefore, TIPS placement should be considered as an option in the management of ACLF patients with variceal bleeding.

TIPS placement as the first-line therapy to prevent variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis and sarcopenia

PURPOSE

Sarcopenia increases the risk of mortality and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) in cirrhosis, and is a potential indication for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). The aim was to investigate the prognostic effect of sarcopenia in patients with cirrhosis who received TIPS for prevention of variceal rebleeding.

METHOD

We retrospectively included 262 patients with cirrhosis receiving TIPS as the first-line treatment for prevention of rebleeding. L3 skeletal muscle index (SMI) was measured and sarcopenia was defined using sex-specific cutoffs. Incidence of post-TIPS mortality and overt HE, and changes of L3-SMI before and after TIPS were compared between the non-sarcopenia and sarcopenia group. Moreover, 21 patients with sarcopenia who received TIPS as the second-line treatment were included for additional comparison.

RESULTS

At admission, 99 (37.8 %) and 163 (62.2 %) patients were diagnosed as sarcopenia and non-sarcopenia, respectively. Compared with the non-sarcopenia group, the sarcopenia group had a similar risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-1.96, p = 0.900) and overt HE (adjusted HR 1.20, 95 %CI 0.72-2.00, p = 0.479). The sarcopenia group achieved higher extent of L3-SMI improvement after TIPS than the non-sarcopenia group (7.0 vs 2.4 cm²/m² in males; 4.2 vs 3.3 cm²/m² in females). For patients with sarcopenia, TIPS as the second-line treatment significantly increased mortality risk compared with TIPS as the first-line treatment (adjusted HR 2.68, 95 %CI 1.05-6.87, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients treated with TIPS as the first-line treatment for prevention of rebleeding, baseline sarcopenia did not increase the risk of post-TIPS mortality and overt HE.

Prevention of post-tips hepatic encephalopathy: The search of the ideal candidate

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has been used since more than 25 years to treat some of the complications of portal hypertension, especially variceal bleeding and ascites refractory to conventional therapy. TIPS establishes a communication between the portal and hepatic veins, inducing the blood to shift from the splanchnic circulation into the systemic vascular bed with the aim of decompressing the portal venous system, and avoids the major complications of portal hypertension. However, the shunt of the portal blood into the systemic circulation is the cause of one of the major complications of the procedure: the post-TIPS hepatic encephalopathy (HE). To date, few pharmacological treatment has been proven effective to prevent this complication and thus, the identification of patients at high risk of post-TIPS hepatic encephalopathy and the patients' carefully selection is the only way to prevent this frequent complication.

The role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in patients with portal hypertension: advantages and pitfalls

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is an effective interventional procedure to relieve portal hypertension, which is a main mechanism for the development of complications of liver cirrhosis (LC), such as variceal hemorrhage, ascites, and hepatorenal syndrome. However, the high incidence of adverse events after TIPS implementation limits its application in clinical practice. Esophageal variceal hemorrhage is one of the major indications for TIPS. Recently, preemptively performed TIPS has been recommended, as several studies have shown that TIPS significantly reduced mortality as well as rebleeding or failure to control bleeding in patients who are at high risk of treatment failure for bleeding control with endoscopic variceal ligation and vasoactive drugs. Meanwhile, recurrent ascites is another indication for TIPS with a proven survival benefit. TIPS may also be considered as an effective treatment for other LC complications, usually as an alternative therapy. Although there are concerns about the development of hepatic encephalopathy and hepatic dysfunction after TIPS implementation, careful patient selection using prognostic scores can lead to excellent outcomes. Assessments of cardiac and renal function prior to TIPS may also be considered to improve patient prognosis.

Efficacy and Safety of Treatments for Patients With Portal Hypertension and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims: Viral hepatitis are one of the main causes of liver cirrhosis. The treatment of portal hypertension caused by liver cirrhosis is difficult and diverse, and the therapeutic effect is unknown. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of treatments for patients with portal hypertension and cirrhosis, including a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), endoscopic therapy, surgical therapy and medications. Methods: Eligible articles were searched for in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases from their inception until June 2020. Using the "gemtc-0.8.4" package in R v.3.6.3 software and the Just Another Gibbs Sampler v.4.2.0 program, network meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model within a Bayesian framework. The odds ratios for all-cause rebleeding, bleeding-related mortality, overall survival (OS), treatment failure and hepatic encephalopathy were determined within the Bayesian framework. Results: Forty randomized controlled trials were identified, including 4,006 adult patients and nine treatment strategies. Our results showed that distal splenorenal shunt and TIPS provided the best control of hemorrhage. Endoscopic variceal ligation with medication resulted in the highest OS rate. Medication alone resulted in poor OS and treatment failure. Conclusions: We performed a systematic comparison of diverse treatments for cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Our meta-analysis indicated that a TIPS and distal splenorenal shunt resulted in lower rates of rebleeding than did other therapies. Furthermore, drugs are more suitable for combination therapy than monotherapy.

Treatment of Acute Variceal Bleeding in 2021-When to Use Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunts?

Variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis is associated with high mortality if not adequately managed. Treatment of acute variceal bleeding with adequate resuscitation maneuvers, restrictive transfusion policy, antibiotic prophylaxis, pharmacologic therapy, and endoscopic therapy is highly effective at controlling bleeding and preventing death. There is a subgroup of high-risk cirrhotic patients in whom this strategy fails, however, and who have a high-mortality rate. Placing a preemptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in these high-risk patients, as soon as possible after admission, to achieve early control of bleeding has proved not only to control bleeding but also to improve survival.

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.

Selective Esophagogastric Devascularization in the Modified Sugiura Procedure for Patients with Cirrhotic Hemorrhagic Portal Hypertension: A Randomized Controlled Trial

AIM

Portal hypertension is a series of syndrome commonly seen with advanced cirrhosis, which seriously affects patient's quality of life and survival. This study was designed to access the efficacy and safety of selective esophagogastric devascularization in the modified Sugiura procedure for patients with cirrhotic hemorrhagic portal hypertension.

METHODS

Sixty patients with hepatitis B cirrhotic hemorrhagic portal hypertension and meeting the inclusion criteria were selected and randomly divided by using computer into the selective modified Sugiura group (sMSP group, n = 30) and the modified Sugiura group (MSP group, n = 30). The primary endpoint measurement is the postoperative rebleeding rate. Secondary endpoint measurements included free portal venous pressure, liver Child-Pugh score, liver volume, portal vein width and blood flow velocity, survival rate, quality of life, and dysphagia as well as other complications one year postoperatively. This trial is registered with ChiCTR, number ChiCTR2000033468.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in rebleeding rates within one year after surgery between patients in the sMSP and MSP groups (χ = 0.11, p=0.73). In comparison with the MSP group, the Child-Pugh score of liver function in the sMSP group significantly increased (χ = 6.4, p=0.04) and the incidence of dysphagia was significantly reduced (χ = 6.23, p=0.01) one year after surgery. There was a statistically significant difference in the quality of life between the two groups. However, there were no statistically significant differences in free portal venous pressure (MD = -3.44, 95% CI: -7.87 to 0.98, p=0.12), postoperative liver volume (3 months: MD = -258.81, 95% CI: -723.21 to 205.57, p=0.24; 1 year: MD = -320.12, 95% CI: -438.43 to 102.78, p=0.16), postoperative portal vein width (3 months: MD = -0.06, p=0.50; 1 year: MD = 0.17, p=0.21), portal vein flow velocity (3 months: MD = 1.64, p=0.21; 1 year: MD = -1.19, p=0.57), 1-year survival rate (χ = 1.01, p=0.31), and other complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Selective esophagogastric devascularization in the modified Sugiura procedure may not lower the incidence of rebleeding in the short term based on our findings. However, it may significantly improve quality of life of patients with cirrhotic hemorrhagic portal hypertension, improve liver function, and reduce postoperative dysphagia.

Management of portal hypertension severe complications

Portal hypertension is a clinical syndrome characterized by an increase in the portal pressure gradient, defined as the gradient between the portal vein at the site downstream of the site of obstruction and the inferior vena cava. The most frequent cause of portal hypertension is cirrhosis. In patients with cirrhosis, portal hypertension is the main driver of cirrhosis progression and development of hepatic decompensation (ascites, variceal hemorrhage and hepatic encephalopathy), which defines the transition from compensated to decompensated stage. In decompensated patients, treatments aim at lowering the risk of death by preventing further decompensation and/or development of acute-on-chronic liver failure. Decompensated patients often pose a complex challenge which typically requires a multidisciplinary approach. The aims of the present review were to discuss the current knowledge regarding interventional treatments for patients with portal hypertension complications as well as to highlight useful information to aid hepatologists in their clinical practice. Specifically, we discussed the indications and contraindications of transjugular intra-hepatic portosystemic shunt and for the treatment of gastro-esophageal variceal hemorrhage in patients with decompensated cirrhosis (first section); we reviewed the use of interventional treatments in patients with hepatic vein obstruction (Budd-Chiari Syndrome) and in those with portal vein thrombosis (second section); and we briefly comment on the most frequent applications of selective splenic embolization in patients with and without underlying cirrhosis (third section).

Portosystemic shunts versus endoscopic intervention with or without medical treatment for prevention of rebleeding in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

People with liver cirrhosis who have had one episode of variceal bleeding are at risk for repeated episodes of bleeding. Endoscopic intervention and portosystemic shunts are used to prevent further bleeding, but there is no consensus as to which approach is preferable.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of shunts (surgical shunts (total shunt (TS), distal splenorenal shunt (DSRS), or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)) versus endoscopic intervention (endoscopic sclerotherapy or banding, or both) with or without medical treatment (non-selective beta blockers or nitrates, or both) for prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with liver cirrhosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CHBG Controlled Trials Register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS (Bireme); Science Citation Index - Expanded (Web of Science); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science); as well as conference proceedings and the references of trials identified until 22 June 2020. We contacted study investigators and industry researchers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing shunts versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis who had recovered from a variceal haemorrhage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. When possible, we collected data to allow intention-to-treat analysis. For each outcome, we estimated a meta-analysed estimate of treatment effect across trials (risk ratio for binary outcomes). We used random-effects model meta-analysis as our main analysis and as a means of presenting results. We reported differences in means for continuous outcomes without a meta-analytic estimate due to high variability in their assessment among all trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 27 randomised trials with 1828 participants. Three trials assessed TSs, five assessed DSRSs, and 19 trials assessed TIPSs. The endoscopic intervention was sclerotherapy in 16 trials, band ligation in eight trials, and a combination of band ligation and either sclerotherapy or glue injection in three trials. In eight trials, endoscopy was combined with beta blockers (in one trial plus isosorbide mononitrate). We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all the outcome review results as very low (i.e. the true effects of the results are likely to be substantially different from the results of estimated effects). The very low evidence grading is due to the overall high risk of bias for all trials, and to imprecision and publication bias for some outcomes. Therefore, we are very uncertain whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment have effects on all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.13; 1828 participants; 27 trials), on rebleeding (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50; 1769 participants; 26 trials), on mortality due to rebleeding (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; 1779 participants; 26 trials), and on occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy, both acute (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.92; 1649 participants; 24 trials) and chronic (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.55; 956 participants; 13 trials). No data were available regarding health-related quality of life. Analysing each modality of portosystemic shunts individually (i.e. TS, DSRS, and TIPS) versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment, we are very uncertain if each type of shunt has effect on all-cause mortality: TS, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.13; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.33; 352 participants; 4 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.31; 1312 participants; 19 trial; on rebleeding: TS, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.56; 127 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.65; 330 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.55; 1312 participants; 19 trials; on mortality due to rebleeding: TS, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.74; 352 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.04; 1263 participants; 18 trials; on acute hepatic encephalopathy: TS, RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.92; 115 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.08; 287 participants; 4 trials, TIPS, RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.99; 1247 participants; 18 trials; and chronic hepatic encephalopathy: TS, Fisher's exact test P = 0.11; 69 participants; 1 trial; DSRS, RR 4.87, 95% CI 1.46 to 16.23; 170 participants; 2 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.93 to 3.80; 717 participants; 10 trials. The proportion of participants with shunt occlusion or dysfunction was overall 37% (95% CI 33% to 40%). It was 3% (95% CI 0.8% to 10%) following TS, 7% (95% CI 3% to 13%) following DSRS, and 47.1% (95% CI 43% to 51%) following TIPS. Shunt dysfunction in trials utilising polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents was 17% (95% CI 11% to 24%). Length of inpatient hospital stay and cost were not comparable across trials. Funding was unclear in 16 trials; 11 trials were funded by government, local hospitals, or universities.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis and previous hypertensive portal bleeding have little or no effect on all-cause mortality is very uncertain. Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts may reduce bleeding and mortality due to bleeding while increasing hepatic encephalopathy is also very uncertain. We need properly conducted trials to assess effects of these interventions not only on assessed outcomes, but also on quality of life, costs, and length of hospital stay.

Where does TIPS fit in the management of patients with cirrhosis?

In this review, we summarise the current knowledge on the indications and contraindications of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement for the treatment of the complications of portal hypertension in cirrhosis, specifically variceal haemorrhage and ascites. Moreover, we discuss the role of TIPS for the treatment of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and the prevention of complications after extrahepatic surgery ('preoperative TIPS') in patients with cirrhosis. The position of TIPS in the treatment hierarchy depends on the clinical setting and on patient characteristics. In acute variceal haemorrhage, preemptive TIPS is indicated in patients at a high risk of failing standard therapy, that is those with a Child-Pugh score of 10-13 points or Child-Pugh B with active bleeding at endoscopy, although the survival benefit in the latter group still remains to be established. Non-preemptive TIPS is a second-line therapy for the prevention of recurrent variceal haemorrhage and for the treatment of ascites. Of note, TIPS may also improve sarcopenia. Contraindications to TIPS placement, independent of clinical setting, include very advanced disease (Child-Pugh >13 points), episodes of recurrent overt hepatic encephalopathy without an identifiable precipitating factor, heart failure, and pulmonary hypertension. In patients with PVT, TIPS placement not only controls complications of portal hypertension, but also promotes portal vein recanalisation. Although the severity of portal hypertension correlates with poor outcomes after extrahepatic surgery, there is no evidence to recommend preoperative TIPS placement.

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.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt in the management of portal hypertension

These guidelines on transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt (TIPSS) in the management of portal hypertension have been commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee (CSSC) of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the Liver Section of the BSG. The guidelines are new and have been produced in collaboration with the British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR) and British Association of the Study of the Liver (BASL). The guidelines development group comprises elected members of the BSG Liver Section, representation from BASL, a nursing representative and two patient representatives. The quality of evidence and grading of recommendations was appraised using the GRADE system. These guidelines are aimed at healthcare professionals considering referring a patient for a TIPSS. They comprise the following subheadings: indications; patient selection; procedural details; complications; and research agenda. They are not designed to address: the management of the underlying liver disease; the role of TIPSS in children; or complex technical and procedural aspects of TIPSS.

Randomised clinical trial: standard of care versus early-transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPSS) in patients with cirrhosis and oesophageal variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Early-transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPSS) has been recommended in international guidelines for high-risk patients with oesophageal variceal bleeding.

AIM

To validate the results of a previous randomised control trial which supports use of early-TIPSS.

METHODS

In a two-centre open-label parallel-group randomised control trial, patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding were recruited following haemostasis with vaso-active drugs and endoscopic band ligation. Participants were randomised to standard of care or early-TIPSS. The primary outcome was 1-year survival, secondary outcomes included early and late rebleeding, and complications of portal hypertension.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients (58 ± 11.12 years; 32.7% female) were randomised. After one year, seven patients died in the standard of care group and six in the early-TIPSS group, a 1-year survival of 75.9% vs 79.3% respectively (P = 0.79). Variceal rebleeding occurred in eight patients in the standard of care group compared with three patients in the early-TIPSS group (P = 0.09). Not all participants randomised to early-TIPSS received the intervention in time. For those receiving TIPSS per-protocol, variceal rebleeding rates were reduced (0% vs 27.6%, P = 0.04) but this had no effect on survival (76.9% vs 75.9%, P = 0.91). Serious adverse events were similar in both treatment groups, except that rates of hepatic encephalopathy were higher in patients receiving TIPSS (46.1% vs 20.7%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Early-TIPSS reduced variceal rebleeding, increased encephalopathy but had no effect on survival in high-risk patients with oesophageal variceal bleeding. Early-TIPSS may not be feasible in many centres however, larger studies are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT02377141.

Long-term outcomes of oesophagogastric devascularization and splenectomy in patients with portal hypertension and liver cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Research about the long-term outcomes of oesophagogastric devascularization and splenectomy (OGDS) to treat portal hypertension (PH) is scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and long-term treatment efficacy of OGDS, especially in elderly patients.

METHODS

During 2010-2016, open splenectomy and oesophagogastric devascularization (OSOD) and laparoscopic splenectomy and oesophagogastric devascularization were performed in 124 (group A) and 29 (group C) patients diagnosed with PH and liver cirrhosis, respectively. All patients aged less than 65 years. Besides, 39 patients aged 65 years or older undergoing open splenectomy and oesophagogastric devascularization were classified into group B. All clinical data were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

Compared with group A, patients in group C had longer operative time, less blood loss and shorter post-operative hospitalization time. However, for perioperative data, there was no significant difference between group A and group B. During post-operative follow-up, compared with pre-operative condition, all haematology and liver function parameters significantly changed, except for alanine aminotransferase. For post-operative complications, only the portal vein system thrombosis rate was significantly higher in group C than group A. No significant difference was found in the overall survival rate among three groups, when non-variceal-rebleeding-related deaths were excluded.

CONCLUSION

OGDS remains safe and effective to treat PH secondary to liver cirrhosis and it can be performed successfully in elderly patients and achieve a curative effect that is not inferior to young patients.

Comparison of the effectiveness of 11 mainstay treatments for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis: A network meta-analysis

The purpose of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), endoscopic options, medications and mainstay combination therapies for patients with cirrhosis who have had at least one episode of variceal haemorrhage. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases, as well as the reference lists of relevant articles, were searched to identify eligible studies. P-scores, that were based solely on the point estimates and standard errors of the network estimates, were performed to rank all treatments, on a scale from 0 (worst) to 1 (best). The odds ratio (OR) was determined to assess effects on mortality, treatment failure and bleeding from gastroesophageal ulcers. A total of 43 randomized controlled trials comprising 3,787 adult patients were included. In total, 26 (61%) trials adopted concealed randomization, while most studies did not specify blinding. The drug combination of nadolol and isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) ranked first for lowering risks of overall mortality (P-score=0.8162), mortality due to liver failure (P-score=0.7536) and bleeding from gastroesophageal ulcers (P-score=0.7536). This combination was determined to be superior to endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) alone (OR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.42-0.94) and TIPS alone in reducing overall mortality (OR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.40-0.96). ES was more likely to increase treatment failure compared with TIPS, endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), ES plus EVL, EVL plus nadolol/propranolol plus ISMN and nadolol/propranolol plus ISMN. In conclusion, the present network meta-analysis suggested that for a decreased mortality due to variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis, nadolol plus ISMN may be a preferable choice, while ES is associated with a higher risk of unfavourable treatment outcomes. Further well-controlled studies are required to further elucidate the appropriate treatment options.

Precision medicine in variceal bleeding: Are we there yet?

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

Selective versus non‐selective shunts for the prevention of variceal rebleeding

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the benefits and harms of any type of selective shunt versus any type of non‐selective shunt for the prevention of oesophagogastric variceal rebleeding in people with portal hypertension.

TIPS Is Not Associated with a Higher Risk of Developing HCC in Cirrhotic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background and Aims: The association between portal-systemic shunt and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development in patients who have cirrhosis is still controversial. This systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to systematically clarify the potential role of portal-systemic shunt in the development of HCC. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for potentially eligible literature. Meta-analysis with random-effects model was performed to combine the incidence rates of HCC after portal-systemic shunt. Finally, seven studies were included. In the present review, we mainly focused on 859 patients (365 in the transjugular intrahepatic portal-systemic shunt (TIPS) group and 494 in the non-TIPS group) from five studies to analyze incidence rates after TIPS. Results: At the end of follow-up, there were 66 (18%, 66/365) patients who developed HCC after TIPS intervention and 63 (13%, 63/494) patients who developed HCC after non-TIPS treatments. Pooled estimates with random-effects model did not demonstrate a significant increase of incidence of HCC after TIPS (risk ratio: 1.37 [confidence interval (CI): 0.96 to 1.97]; p = 0.08) compared with non-TIPS treatments. Subgroup analyses for those patients with transplanted liver also did not detect a significant difference between the TIPS group and non-TIPS group (risk ratio: 1.10 [CI: 0.59 to 2.07]; p = 0.75). Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that portal-systemic shunt is not associated with a higher risk of HCC development in cirrhotic patients.

Early TIPS with covered stents versus standard treatment for acute variceal bleeding in patients with advanced cirrhosis: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The survival benefit of early placement of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) in patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding is controversial. We aimed to assess whether early TIPS improves survival in patients with advanced cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding.

METHODS

We did an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised controlled trial at an academic hospital in China. Consecutive patients with advanced cirrhosis (Child-Pugh class B or C) and acute variceal bleeding who had been treated with vasoactive drugs plus endoscopic therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either early TIPS (done within 72 h after initial endoscopy [early TIPS group]) or standard treatment (vasoactive drugs continued to day 5, followed by propranolol plus endoscopic band ligation for the prevention of rebleeding, with TIPS as rescue therapy when needed [control group]). Randomisation was done by web-based randomisation system using a Pocock and Simon's minimisation method with Child-Pugh class (B vs C) and presence or absence of active bleeding as adjustment factors. The primary outcome was transplantation-free survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, excluding individuals subsequently found to be ineligible for enrolment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01370161, and is completed.

FINDINGS

From June 26, 2011, to Sept 30, 2017, 373 patients were screened and 132 patients were randomly assigned to the early TIPS group (n=86) or to the control group (n=46). After exclusion of three individuals subsequently found to be ineligible for enrolment (two patients in the early TIPS group with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension or hepatocellular carcinoma, and one patient in the control group due to non-cirrhotic portal hypertension), 84 patients in the early TIPS group and 45 patients in the control group were included in the intention-to-treat population. 15 (18%) patients in the early TIPS group and 15 (33%) in the control group died; two (2%) patients in the early TIPS group and one (2%) in the control group underwent liver transplantation. Transplantation-free survival was higher in the early TIPS group than in the control group (hazard ratio 0·50, 95% CI 0·25-0·98; p=0·04). Transplantation-free survival at 6 weeks was 99% (95% CI 97-100) in the early TIPS group compared with 84% (75-96; absolute risk difference 15% [95% CI 5-48]; p=0·02) and at 1 year was 86% (79-94) in the early TIPS group versus 73% (62-88) in the control group (absolute risk difference 13% [95% CI 2-28]; p=0·046). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of hepatic hydrothorax (two [2%] of 84 patients in the early TIPS group vs one [2%] of 45 in the control group; p=0·96), spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (one [1%] vs three [7%]; p=0·12), hepatic encephalopathy (29 [35%] vs 16 [36%]; p=1·00), hepatorenal syndrome (four [5%] vs six [13%]; p=0·10), and hepatocellular carcinoma (four [5%] vs one [2%]; p=0·68). There was no significant difference in the number of patients who experienced other serious adverse events (ten [12%] vs 11 [24%]; p=0·07) or non-serious adverse events (21 [25%] vs 19 [42%]; p=0·05) between groups.

INTERPRETATION

Early TIPS with covered stents improved transplantation-free survival in selected patients with advanced cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding and should therefore be preferred to the current standard of care.

FUNDING

National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Key Technology R&D Program, Optimized Overall Project of Shaanxi Province, Boost Program of Xijing Hospital.

Preemptive-TIPS Improves Outcome in High-Risk Variceal Bleeding: An Observational Study

Patients admitted with acute variceal bleeding (AVB) and Child-Pugh C score (CP-C) or Child-Pugh B plus active bleeding at endoscopy (CP-B+AB) are at high risk for treatment failure, rebleeding, and mortality. A preemptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (p-TIPS) has been shown to improve survival in these patients, but its use in clinical practice has been challenged and not routinely incorporated. The present study aimed to further validate the role of preemptive TIPS in a large number of high-risk patients. This multicenter, international, observational study included 671 patients from 34 centers admitted for AVB and high risk of treatment failure. Patients were managed according to current guidelines, and use of drugs and endoscopic therapy (D+E) or p-TIPS was based on individual center policy. p-TIPS in the setting of AVB is associated with a lower mortality in CP-C patients compared with D+E (1 year mortality 22% vs. 47% in D+E group; P = 0.002). Mortality rate in CP-B+AB patients was low, and p-TIPS did not improve it. In CP-C and CP-B+AB patients, p-TIPS reduced treatment failure and rebleeding (1-year cumulative incidence function probability of remaining free of the composite endpoint: 92% vs. 74% in the D+E group; P = 0.017) and development of de novo or worsening of previous ascites without increasing rates of hepatic encephalopathy. Conclusion: p-TIPS must be the treatment of choice in CP-C patients with AVB. Because of the strong benefit in preventing further bleeding and ascites, p-TIPS could be a good treatment strategy for CP-B+AB patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A randomized trial to assess whether portal pressure guided therapy to prevent variceal rebleeding improves survival in cirrhosis

Monitoring the hemodynamic response of portal pressure (PP) to drug therapy accurately stratifies the risk of variceal rebleeding (VRB). We assessed whether guiding therapy with hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) monitoring may improve survival by preventing VRB. Patients with cirrhosis with controlled variceal bleeding were randomized to an HVPG-guided therapy group (N = 84) or to a control group (N = 86). In both groups, HVPG and acute β-blocker response were evaluated at baseline and HVPG measurements were repeated at 2-4 weeks to determine chronic response. In the HVPG-guided group, acute responders were treated with nadolol and acute nonresponders with nadolol+nitrates. Chronic nonresponders received nadolol+prazosin and had a third HVPG study. Ligation sessions were repeated until response was achieved. The control group was treated with nadolol+nitrates+ligation. Between-group baseline characteristics were similar. During long-term follow-up (median of 24 months), mortality was lower in the HVPG-guided therapy group than in the control group (29% vs. 43%; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35-0.99). Rebleeding occurred in 19% versus 31% of patients, respectively (HR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.29-0.98), and further decompensation of cirrhosis occurred in 52% versus 72% (HR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.46-0.99). The survival probability was higher with HVPG-guided therapy than in controls, both in acute (HR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.32-1.08) and chronic nonresponders (HR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.23-0.99). HVPG-guided patients had a greater reduction of HVPG and a lower final value than controls (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

HVPG monitoring, by stratifying risk and targeting therapy, improves the survival achieved with currently recommended treatment to prevent VRB using β-blockers and ligation. HVPG-guided therapy achieved a greater reduction in PP, which may have contributed to reduce the risk of rebleeding and of further decompensation of cirrhosis, thus contributing to a better survival. (Hepatology 2017;65:1693-1707).

The soluble mannose receptor is released from the liver in cirrhotic patients, but is not associated with bacterial translocation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Intestinal bacterial translocation is involved in activation of liver macrophages in cirrhotic patients. Macrophages play a key role in liver inflammation and are involved in the pathogenesis of cirrhosis and complications. Bacterial translocation may be determined by presence of bacterial DNA and macrophage activation, by the soluble mannose receptor. We hypothesize that the soluble mannose receptor is released from hepatic macrophages in cirrhosis and associated with bacterial DNA, portal pressure and complications.

METHODS

We investigated 28 cirrhotic patients set for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt insertion as a result of refractory ascites (n=17), acute (n=3), or recurrent variceal bleeding (n=8). We analysed plasma from the portal and hepatic veins for bacterial DNA and soluble mannose receptor with qPCR and ELISA.

RESULTS

The median soluble mannose receptor level was elevated in the hepatic vein compared with the portal vein (0.57(interquartile range 0.31) vs 0.55(0.40) mg/L, P=.005). The soluble mannose receptor levels were similar in bacterial DNA-positive and -negative patients. The soluble mannose receptor level in the portal and hepatic veins correlated with the portal pressure prior to transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt insertion (r=.52, P<.008, both) and the levels correlated with Child-Pugh score (r=.63 and r=.56, P<.004, both). We observed higher soluble mannose receptor levels in patients with acute variceal bleeding compared to other indications (P<.05).

CONCLUSION

This study showed hepatic soluble mannose receptor excretion with a higher level in the hepatic than the portal vein, though with no associations to bacterial DNA. We observed associations between soluble mannose receptor levels and portal pressure and higher levels in patients with acute variceal bleeding indicating the soluble mannose receptor as a marker of complications of cirrhosis, but not bacterial translocation.

Interventional endoscopic ultrasound: A new promising way for intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with portal pressure gradient

Background and Objectives:

Interventional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a promising novel approach for intravascular interventions. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of a EUS-guided intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (EGIPS) with portal pressure gradient measurement in a live porcine model.

Methods:

The left hepatic vein (LHV) or the inferior vena cava (IVC) was punctured with a needle that advanced into the portal vein (PV). A guidewire was then inserted into the PV, and a needle knife was used to create an intrahepatic fistula between LHV and PV. Portal pressure was recorded. The fistula was dilated with a balloon and a biliary metal stent was deployed between LHV and PV under sonographic and fluoroscopic observation. A portocavography validated the patency of the stent. Necropsies were realized after euthanasia.

Results:

Portosystemic stenting was achieved in 19/21 pigs. Final portocavography confirmed stent patency between PV and LHV or IVC in 17 pigs (efficacy of 81%): Four stents were dysfunctional as two were thrombosed and two were poor positioned. Portal pressure was documented before and after shunting in 20/21 pigs. Necropsies revealed that 19/21 procedures were transesophageal and two were transgastric. Hemoperitoneum and pneumothorax were found in one pig and hemothorax was found in two pigs. Morbidity was 14.2% (3/21 animals).

Conclusion:

EGIPS was feasible in 91% of cases, functional in 81%, with 14.2% per procedure morbidity. EGIPS still needs to be assessed in portal hypertension pig models with longer follow-up before being considered as an alternative when the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt fails.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt combined with esophagogastric variceal embolization in the treatment of a large gastrorenal shunt

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) combined with stomach and esophageal variceal embolization (SEVE) in cirrhotic patients with a large gastrorenal vessel shunt (GRVS).

METHODS: Eighty-one cirrhotic patients with gastric variceal bleeding (GVB) associated with a GRVS were enrolled in the study and accepted TIPS combined with SEVE (TIPS + SEVE), by which portosystemic pressure gradient (PPG), biochemical, TIPS-related complications, shunt dysfunction, rebleeding, and death were evaluated.

RESULTS: The PPGs before TIPS were greater than 12 mmHg in 81 patients. TIPS + SEVE treatment caused a significant decrease in PPG (from 37.97 ± 6.36 mmHg to 28.15 ± 6.52 mmHg, t = 19.22, P < 0.001). The percentage of reduction in PPG was greater than 20% from baseline. There were no significant differences in albumin, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, bilirubin, prothrombin time, or Child-Pugh score before and after operation. In all patients, rebleeding rates were 3%, 6%, 12%, 18%, and 18% at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 mo, respectively. Five patients (6.2%) were diagnosed as having hepatic encephalopathy. The rates of shunt dysfunction were 0%, 4%, 9%, 26%, and 26%, at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 mo, respectively. The cumulative survival rates in 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 mo were 100%, 100%, 95%, 90%, and 90%, respectively.

CONCLUSION: Our preliminary results indicated that the efficacy and safety of TIPS + SEVE were satisfactory in cirrhotic patients with GVB associated with a GRVS (GVB + GRVS).

Impact of Alcohol Related Disease and Inpatient Workload of Gastroenterologists in Scotland

Background: Concern among Scots gastroenterologists about alcohol related illness prompted this inpatient prevalence study during the winter of 2000–01. Aims: To study gastroenterology inpatient workload due to alcohol-related illness, to determine how much was specialty specific, and if there were regional variations. Methods: 40 Consultant gastroenterologists throughout Scotland collected data on the prevalence of alcohol related conditions among inpatients under their care on each of three specified days during the winter of 2000/2001. All inpatients under the care of participating consultants on the designated study days were included in the study. Overall return rate was 65%. Patients were categorised as follows; (a) general medical inpatients admitted for reasons other than alcohol related illness (b) general medical inpatients with no gastrointestinal or liver disease, but whose admission to hospital was primarily related to alcohol misuse, (c) gastrointestinal (including liver) inpatients admitted for reasons unrelated to alcohol intake, and with no alcohol related disease, and (d) gastrointestinal inpatients whose admission to hospital resulted from alcohol related disease. Additionally, the numbers of patients with (e) decompensated liver disease of all causes, (f) decompensated alcoholic liver disease, and (g) the numbers “blocking” acute beds after initial hospitalisation with an alcohol related illness were collected. Results: Overall, 829 general medical and 538 gastroenterology inpatients were entered in the study; total 1367 (705 male, 662 female). Of these, 25% (337/1367) were admitted because of alcohol related illness: 15% (201/1367) had decompensated alcoholic liver disease. Of 538 gastroenterology inpatients, 238 (44%) had problems related to alcohol, and 201 of these (37% of all gastroenterology inpatients) had decompensated alcoholic liver disease. Of 246 inpatients with decompensated liver disease, 82% (201) had alcoholic liver disease. Alcohol related illness was significantly more prevalent among male inpatients in the West of Scotland. 10% of specialist gastroenterology beds were occupied by patients whose discharge was delayed because of alcohol related problems. Conclusions: Most Scottish gastroenterologists contribute to general medical receiving but their specialist inpatient workload is dominated by treatment of patients with alcohol related disease. (44% in gastroenterology v 12% in general medicine). Inpatients with decompensated alcoholic liver disease form 37% of gastroenterology workload. Alcohol related disease contributes to delayed discharge in acute medical units, especially in gastroenterology wards. There are regional differences in prevalence of alcohol related disease, which is greatest in male inpatients in the West of Scotland. Here, alcoholic liver disease accounts for nearly all decompensated liver disease. The findings point to a need to review the current patterns of acute service provision for alcohol related illnesses, so as to assess and improve both the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of care, and to ensure that alternatives to acute hospital admission are available when appropriate. This need should not be neglected while efforts are simultaneously being made to improve the early detection of alcohol abuse and prevent irreversible alcohol related disease.

Covered transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus endoscopic therapy + β-blocker for prevention of variceal rebleeding

Gastroesophageal variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, as well as a high rebleeding risk. Limited data are available on the role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) with covered stents in patients receiving standard endoscopic, vasoactive, and antibiotic treatment. In this multicenter randomized trial, long-term endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) or glue injection + β-blocker treatment was compared with TIPS placement in 72 patients with a first or second episode of gastric and/or esophageal variceal bleeding, after hemodynamic stabilization upon endoscopic, vasoactive, and antibiotic treatment. Randomization was stratified according to Child-Pugh score. Kaplan-Meier (event-free) survival estimates were used for the endpoints rebleeding, death, treatment failure, and hepatic encephalopathy. During a median follow-up of 23 months, 10 (29%) of 35 patients in the endoscopy + β-blocker group, as compared to 0 of 37 (0%) patients in the TIPS group, developed variceal rebleeding (P = 0.001). Mortality (TIPS 32% vs. endoscopy 26%; P = 0.418) and treatment failure (TIPS 38% vs. endoscopy 34%; P = 0.685) did not differ between groups. Early hepatic encephalopathy (within 1 year) was significantly more frequent in the TIPS group (35% vs. 14%; P = 0.035), but during long-term follow-up this difference diminished (38% vs. 23%; P = 0.121).

CONCLUSIONS

In unselected patients with cirrhosis, who underwent successful endoscopic hemostasis for variceal bleeding, covered TIPS was superior to EVL + β-blocker for reduction of variceal rebleeding, but did not improve survival. TIPS was associated with higher rates of early hepatic encephalopathy.

Prevention of Rebleeding From Esophageal Varices in Patients With Cirrhosis Receiving Small-Diameter Stents Versus Hemodynamically Controlled Medical Therapy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients with cirrhosis and variceal hemorrhage have a high risk of rebleeding. We performed a prospective randomized trial to compare the prevention of rebleeding in patients given a small-diameter covered stent vs those given hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG)-based medical therapy prophylaxis.

METHODS

We performed an open-label study of patients with cirrhosis (92% Child class A or B, 70% alcoholic) treated at 10 medical centers in Germany. Patients were assigned randomly more than 5 days after variceal hemorrhage to groups given a small covered transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt (TIPS) (8 mm; n = 90), or medical reduction of portal pressure (propranolol and isosorbide-5-mononitrate; n = 95). HVPG was determined at the time patients were assigned to groups (baseline) and 2 weeks later. In the medical group, patients with an adequate reduction in HVPG (responders) remained on the drugs whereas nonresponders underwent only variceal band ligation. The study was closed 10 months after the last patient was assigned to a group. The primary end point was variceal rebleeding. Survival, safety (adverse events), and quality of life (based on the Short Form-36 health survey) were secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

A significantly smaller proportion of patients in the TIPS group had rebleeding within 2 years (7%) than in the medical group (26%) (P = .002). A slightly higher proportion of patients in the TIPS group experienced adverse events, including encephalopathy (18% vs 8% for medical treatment; P = .05). Rebleeding occurred in 6 of 23 patients (26%) receiving medical treatment before hemodynamic control was possible. Per-protocol analysis showed that rebleeding occurred in a smaller proportion of the 32 responders (18%) than in nonresponders who received variceal band ligation (31%) (P = .06). Fifteen patients from the medical group (16%) underwent TIPS placement during follow-up evaluation, mainly for refractory ascites. Survival time and quality of life did not differ between both randomized groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of a small-diameter, covered TIPS was straightforward and prevented variceal rebleeding in patients with Child A or B cirrhosis more effectively than drugs, which often required step-by-step therapy. However, TIPS did not increase survival time or quality of life and produced slightly more adverse events. Clinical Trial no: ISRCTN 16334693.

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.

Advanced Cirrhosis Combined with Portal Vein Thrombosis: A Randomized Trial of TIPS versus Endoscopic Band Ligation Plus Propranolol for the Prevention of Recurrent Esophageal Variceal Bleeding

PURPOSE

To compare transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement with or without variceal embolization with endoscopic band ligation (EBL) plus propranolol in preventing recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with advanced cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present randomized controlled trial was approved by the ethics committee board of West China Hospital. Written informed consent was obtained from each patient. Between January 2010 and December 2012, 73 patients were randomly allocated to receive TIPS (n = 37) or EBL plus propranolol (n = 36). The comparisons of recurrent variceal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, and survival rates were based on the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 22.8 months ± 7.7(standard deviation) in the TIPS group and 20.9 months ± 8.9 in the EBL group. The 2-year probability of remaining free of recurrent variceal bleeding was higher in the TIPS group (77.8%) than in the EBL group (42.9%) (P = .002). Overall recanalization was achieved in 24 (64.9%) patients from the TIPS group and seven (19.4%) patients from the EBL group. The hepatic encephalopathy rates exhibited no significant differences between the two groups (P = .53). The 1- and 2-year probability of survival was 86.5% and 72.9%, respectively, in the TIPS group and 83.3% and 57.2%, respectively, in the EBL group, with no significant difference (P = .23).

CONCLUSION

TIPS was more effective than EBL plus propranolol in preventing recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with advanced cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis and did not increase the incidence of hepatic encephalopathy. Survival was similar in both groups.

Transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt is a risk factor for liver dysplasia but not hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study of explanted livers

BACKGROUND

Conflicting data exist regarding the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma after transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPS) insertion in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed histopathological data from 214 patients who were transplanted in our Institution including 68 patients who underwent TIPS placement before transplantation. Pathological lesions from explanted livers, including incidental hepatocellular carcinoma, small cell dysplasia and large cell dysplasia were recorded.

RESULTS

Pathological lesions were found in 36.4% of explanted livers. TIPS insertion was an independent risk factor for pathological lesion (HR = 2.11, p < 0.05), concurrently with age (HR = 1.10 per year, p < 0.001) and viral aetiology of cirrhosis (HR = 3.05, p < 0.001). When considering the different type of lesions, TIPS insertion was not associated with an increased risk for hepatocellular carcinoma but was an independent risk factor for liver dysplasia (HR = 2.15, p = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

Although a direct relationship between TIPS insertion and hepatocellular carcinoma risk was not demonstrated in this study, the increased frequency of liver dysplasia observed in TIPS-bearing explanted livers deserves further prospective investigations with adequate follow-up.

Epidemiology, diagnosis and early patient management of esophagogastric hemorrhage

Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is a potentially life-threatening complication of cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Combination therapy with vasoactive drugs and endoscopic variceal ligation is the first-line treatment in the management of AVB after adequate hemodynamic resuscitation. Short-term antibiotic prophylaxis, early resuscitation, early use of lactulose for prevention of hepatic encephalopathy, targeting of conservative goals for blood transfusion, and application of early transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts in patients with AVB have further improved the prognosis of AVB. This article discusses the epidemiology, diagnosis, and nonendoscopic management of AVB.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is an established procedure for the complications of portal hypertension. The largest body of evidence for its use has been supported for recurrent or refractory variceal bleeding and refractory ascites. Its use has also been advocated for acute variceal bleed, hepatic hydrothorax, and hepatorenal syndrome. With the replacement of bare metal stents with polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents, shunt patency has improved dramatically, thus, improving outcomes. Therefore, reassessment of its utility, management of its complications, and understanding of various TIPS techniques is important.

Efficacy of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with adjunctive embolotherapy with cyanoacrylate for esophageal variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) with adjunctive embolotherapy has recently been reported to be effective in the prevention of variceal hemorrhage of cirrhotic patients. However, further investigation of its long-term efficacy is still needed.

AIM

To examine the rebleeding, survival, and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) after treatment with TIPS alone and TIPS with adjunctive embolotherapy using cyanoacrylate for esophageal variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Patients with refractory to endoscopic therapy for esophageal variceal bleeding were enrolled. TIPS was performed in 101 patients with adjunctive embolotherapy (n = 53) or alone (n = 48) between January 2006 and December 2011. Chart reviews were performed to determine rebleeding, survival rates, and the incidence of HE.

RESULTS

Recurrent hemorrhage occurred in 12 (11.9 %) patients during the mean follow-up periods of 35.8 months. Rebleeding was observed in 9/48 (18.8 %) patients in TIPS alone group and 3/53 (5.7 %) patients in TIPS with adjunctive embolotherapy group (p = 0.042). Death occurred in 30 patients during follow-up (TIPS alone: n = 16, TIPS with adjunctive embolotherapy: n = 14, p = 0.447). Twenty-six episodes of HE occurred in 18 patients in TIPS alone group and 16 episodes occurred in 10 patients in TIPS with embolotherapy group. The probability of HE was significantly higher in TIPS alone group than in TIPS with embolotherapy group (p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

TIPS with adjunctive embolotherapy with cyanoacrylate is relatively safe and effective, with a lower rebleeding and HE incidence in comparison of TIPS alone.

Hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: a retrospective case-control study

BACKGROUND

An association between Transjugular Intrahepatic Porto-Systemic Shunt (TIPS) and the development of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis has been suggested, but not confirmed.

AIM

To evaluate the potential role of TIPS in hepatocellular carcinoma development.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective case-control study among patients with cirrhosis; all cases had undergone TIPS placement. Cases and controls were followed as outpatients at a single liver care centre in the same timeframe.

RESULTS

Overall, 101 patients with cirrhosis (mean age 58 ± 9 years, 64.3% male) were included in each group. Median duration of follow-up was 56.7 months (range 8.2-174.5) for TIPS patients and 67.8 months (range 8.3-183.1) for controls (p=0.08). In both groups 94% of patients had Child-Pugh Class A or B cirrhosis. The cumulative incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years was 2%, 7%, 18%, and 46% among TIPS patients, and 3%, 10%, 19%, and 39% among controls (log rank test p=0.19). Compared to controls, hepatocellular carcinoma nodules in TIPS patients were more frequently situated in the right lobe (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

TIPS does not seem to increase the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with Child-Pugh Class A or B cirrhosis; for these patients ultrasound surveillance should not be modified.

Role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the management of portal hypertension

A transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is an expandable metal stent inserted via the jugular vein that creates a shunt from the portal vein to the systemic circulation via an artificial communication through the liver. It is used to treat complications of portal hypertension. In addition to rescue treatment in variceal bleeding, TIPS can play an important role in prevention of rebleeding. TIPS can improve symptoms if medical treatment of ascites or hepatic hydrothrorax has failed, but may not improve survival. Selected cases of Budd-Chiari syndrome improve with TIPS. This article discusses the indications, evidence, and complications of TIPS.

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.

Efficacy and safety of three different methods for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), propranolol and EVL plus propranolol for the primary prophylaxis of first variceal bleeding in cirrhosis.

METHODS: We chose 90 patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices at a high risk of bleeding and divided them into EVL (n = 30), propranolol (n = 30) and combination (n = 30) groups. Treatment effectiveness and side effects in the 3 groups were compared.

RESULTS: The three groups of patients had comparable baseline characteristics and follow-up time (EVL: 19.9 mo ± 7.2 mo; propranolol: 19.3 mo ± 6.7 mo; combination: 21.4 mo ± 5.3 mo). There were no significant differences in average ligation times between the EVL group and combination group (2.2 ± 1.2 vs 2.0 ± 0.9, P > 0.05), mean daily propranolol dose between the propranolol group and combination group(75.6 mg ± 23.4 mg vs 68.8 mg ± 30.5 mg, P > 0.05), rate of first variceal bleeding and bleeding-related mortality (10.0%, 16.7% vs 6.6%, both P > 0.05) or incidence of portal hypertensive gastropathy between the three groups (16.7%, 6.6% vs 10.0%, both P > 0.05). The incidence of complications and adverse reactions was significantly different between the three groups (50.0%, 26.7% vs 56.7%, both P < 0.05), but no serious complications or adverse reactions occurred. The difference in variceal recurrence rate was significant between the EVL group and combination group (26.7% vs 6.6%, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION: EVL, propranolol and EVL plus propranolol are effective and safe in primary prophylaxis of bleeding due to high-risk varices. The adverse effects caused by propranolol are minimal. The recurrence of varices is lower if propranolol is added to EVL, but without much more adverse reactions.

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.