A prospective, randomized comparison of the ease and safety of variceal ligation using a multiband vs. a conventional ligation device

Clinical outcomes of sedation during emergency endoscopic band ligation for variceal bleeding: Multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Few studies have directly compared the efficacy of sedated- and un-sedated endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for acute variceal bleeding. We aimed to determine whether sedation during EVL in patients with variceal bleeding is safe and effective.

METHODS

We analyzed data from patients who underwent EVL for acute variceal bleeding according to sedation in six hospitals of Hallym University Medical Center. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as a failure to control bleeding, death during EVL, or rebleeding within 5 days. Secondary endpoints included the procedure time, adverse events, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Of 1,300 patients who were included, only 430 (33.1%) received sedation during EVL. Propofol alone was used for sedation in 85% of sedated-EVLs. The mean procedure time in the sedation group was shorter than that of the non-sedation group (12.4 ± 9.5 min versus 13.8 ± 9.4 min, P = 0.010). The proportion of treatment failure did not differ between the groups (7.4% versus 9.1%, P = 0.374). In the multivariable analysis, an AIMS65 score ≥2 and blood transfusion within 72 hours were associated with treatment failure of EVL; however, the use of sedation was not (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.96 [0.60-1.51]). Adverse events during EVL and hepatic encephalopathy did not differ between the two groups. Sedation also did not affect the 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [95% CI] = 0.99 [0.66-1.47]).

CONCLUSION

Sedation reduced the procedure time of EVL. Sedation is safe to use during EVL for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

Interventions for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Band ligation versus no intervention for primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

The presence of oesophageal varices is associated with the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopic variceal ligation is used to prevent this occurrence but the ligation procedure may be associated with complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of band ligation versus no intervention for primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 9 February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing band ligation verus no intervention regardless of publication status, blinding, or language in the analyses of benefits and harms, and observational studies in the assessment of harms. Included participants had cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no previous history of variceal bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors extracted data independently. The primary outcome measures were all-cause mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and I² values as a marker of heterogeneity. In addition, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTTB) for the primary outcomes . We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains; determined the certainty of the evidence using GRADE; and conducted sensitivity analyses including Trial Sequential Analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised clinical trials involving 637 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One of the trials included an additional small number of participants (< 10% of the total) with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension/portal vein block. We classified one trial as at low risk of bias for the outcome, mortality and high risk of bias for the remaining outcomes; the five remaining trials were at high risk of bias for all outcomes. We downgraded the evidence to moderate certainty due to the bias risk. We gathered data on all primary outcomes from all trials. Seventy-one of 320 participants allocated to band ligation compared to 129 of 317 participants allocated to no intervention died (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70; I² = 0%; NNTTB = 6 persons). In addition, band ligation was associated with reduced risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 61%; NNTTB = 5 persons), serious adverse events (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 44%; NNTTB = 4 persons), and variceal bleeding (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.69; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 56%; NNTTB = 5 persons). The non-serious adverse events reported in association with band ligation included oesophageal ulceration, dysphagia, odynophagia, retrosternal and throat pain, heartburn, and fever, and in the one trial involving participants with either small or large varices, the incidence of non-serious side effects in the banding group was much higher in those with small varices, namely ulcers: small versus large varices 30.5% versus 8.7%; heartburn 39.2% versus 17.4%. No trials reported on health-related quality of life.Two trials did not receive support from pharmaceutical companies; the remaining four trials did not provide information on this issue.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found moderate-certainty evidence that, in patients with cirrhosis, band ligation of oesophageal varices reduces mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, variceal bleeding, and serious adverse events compared to no intervention. It is unlikely that further trials of band ligation versus no intervention would be considered ethical.

Interventions for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Endoscopic band ligation: Beyond prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the preferred endoscopic technique for the endoscopic treatment of acute esophageal variceal bleeding. EBL has also been used to treat nonvariceal bleeding. Recently, Han et al demonstrated that EBL can be a feasible and safe alternate technique for the management of iatrogenic gastric perforation especially in cases in which closure with endoclips is difficult. EBL is technically simpler to perform than other methods and provides a good view of the lesions under direct pressure and suction from the transparent ligation cap. EBL can be used even if the diameter of the perforation is greater than 10 mm or if there is a severe tangential angle. In this commentary, we discuss the efficacy and safety of EBL for the closure of iatrogenic gastrointestinal perforation. We also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of EBL for the treatment of nonvariceal bleeding.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Banding ligation versus beta-blockers as primary prophylaxis in esophageal varices: systematic review of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare banding ligation versus beta-blockers as primary prophylaxis in patients with esophageal varices and no previous bleeding.

METHODS

Randomized trials were identified through electronic databases, reference lists in relevant articles, and correspondence with experts. Three authors extracted data. Random effects meta-analysis and metaregression were performed. The reported allocation sequence generation and concealment were extracted as measures of bias control.

RESULTS

The initial searches identified 1,174 references. Sixteen trials were included. In 15 trials, patients had high-risk varices. Three trials reported adequate bias control. All trials reported mortality for banding ligation (116/573 patients) and beta-blockers (115/594 patients). Mortality in the two treatment groups was not significantly different in the trials with adequate bias control (relative risk 1.22, 95% CI 0.84-1.78) or unclear bias control (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75-1.39). Trials with adequate bias control found no significant difference in bleeding rates (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55-1.35). Trials with unclear bias control found that banding ligation significantly reduced bleeding (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41-0.77). Both treatments were associated with adverse events. In metaregression analyses, the estimated effect of ligation was significantly more positive if trials were published as abstracts. Likewise, the shorter the follow-up, the more positive the estimated effect of ligation.

CONCLUSIONS

Banding ligation and beta-blockers may be used as primary prophylaxis in high-risk esophageal varices. The estimated effect of banding ligation in some trials may be biased and was associated with the duration of follow-up. Further high-quality trials are still needed.

Comparison among endoscopic variceal slerotheropy, endoscopic variceal slerotheropy with sequential endoscopic variceal ligation plus endoscopic variceal slerotheropy, and endoscopic variceal ligation plus endoscopic variceal slerotheropy for esophageal varicosis

AIM: To compare the efficacies for esophageal varicosis treated by endoscopic variceal slerotheropy (EVS), endoscopic variceal slerotheropy with sequential endoscopic variceal ligation plus endoscopic variceal slerotheropy (EVS + EVL + EVS), and endoscopic variceal ligation plus endoscopic variceal slerotheropy (EVL + EVS).

METHODS: One hundred and thirty type B viral hepatitis-caused liver cirrhosis patients complicated with esophageal bleeding were allocated into 3 groups: 50 cases in EVS group, 40 in EVS + EVL + EVS group, and 40 in EVL + EVS group.

RESULTS: The cure rate of varicosis was not significantly different among these three groups. The amount of sclerosant, time of therapy and in-hospital days were significantly higher in EVS group than the other two groups (95.64 ± 37.51 mL vs 55.90 ± 38.93 mL, 32.15 ± 26.97 mL; 3.64 ± 1.32 vs 1.85 ± 1.18, 1.35 ± 0.88; 25.92 ± 8.69 d vs 20.6 ± 5.00 d, 17.55 ± 4.62 d; all P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between EVS + EVL + EVS group and EVL + EVS group. Varicosis recurrence was more frequently happened in EVL + EVS group than that in the other groups (45% vs 12%, 20%, P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the later two groups. No significant difference was observed in the rate of repeated bleeding and complications among these groups.

CONCLUSION: The efficacy of EVS + EVL + EVS and EVL + EVS, especially EVS + EVL + EVS, are superior to that of EVS.

Therapeutic effects of endoscopic variceal ligation combined with partial splenic embolization for portal hypertension

AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of a new strategy of endoscopic variceal ligation combined with partial splenic embolization (EVL-PSE) for patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

METHODS: From May 1999 to May 2002, 41 cases with cirrhosis and portal hypertension underwent EVL-PSE. Hemodynamics of the main portal vein (MPV), the left gastric vein (LGV) and azygos vein, including maximum velocity, flow rate and vein diameter, were assessed by Doppler ultrasonography.

RESULTS: One case died from pulmonary artery embolism. One case complicated with splenic abscess was successfully managed by laparotomy. The esophageal varices and hypersplenism were well controlled after EVL-PSE in other patients. After EVL-PSE, the flow rate and velocity of MPV was significantly reduced (P < 0.05), as well as the flow rate of the LGV and azygos vein. During the follow-up, no recurrent bleeding was found.

CONCLUSION: Being more convenient and less invasive, EVL-PSE is hopeful to be a proper intervention strategy for portal hypertensive patients with impaired hepatic function or those intolerant to shunting or devascularization surgery.

Prospective controlled assessment of variable stiffness enteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Push enteroscopy is a well-established technique for evaluation of the small intestine. However, looping of the enteroscope within the stomach limits depth of insertion. Stiffening overtubes that minimize gastric looping are tolerated marginally by patients and disliked by endoscopists. A variable stiffness instrument has the potential to eliminate the need for an overtube while still minimizing gastric looping. The performance of a prototype variable stiffness enteroscope was compared prospectively with that of a conventional push enteroscope with and without use of an overtube.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing enteroscopy were randomized to have the procedure with a variable stiffness instrument, a conventional instrument with overtube, or a conventional instrument without overtube. Depth of insertion distal to the ligament of Treitz was determined by plain abdominal radiography.

OBSERVATIONS

In total, 67 patients were randomized to variable stiffness enteroscopy (25 patients), enteroscopy with overtube (23 patients), and enteroscopy without overtube (19 patients). Median depth of insertion distal to the ligament of Treitz, respectively, for each group, was 89 cm, 68 cm and 41 cm (p = 0.03). In multivariate analysis, variable stiffness instrument use was predictive of intubation to 65 cm distal to the ligament of Treitz (odds ratio 5.53: 95% CI [1.25, 31.25] vs. no overtube, and odds ratio 2.50: 95% CI [0.63, 11.1] vs. overtube). Procedure duration and overall patient tolerance did not differ significantly among the 3 groups, although more patients in the overtube group required additional sedation than patients in the variable stiffness group (p = 0.03). Both endoscopists' (r = 0.34) and nurses' (r = 0.36) estimates of patient discomfort during the procedure correlated poorly with patient tolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

A variable stiffness push enteroscope enhances insertion depth compared with the conventional instrument with or without overtube. Further studies are required to determine whether this improved performance increases diagnostic yield.

Endoscopic ligation compared with sclerotherapy for bleeding esophageal varices in children with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction

Endoscopic sclerotherapy is an effective treatment for bleeding esophageal varices, but it is associated with significant complications. Endoscopic ligation, a new form of endoscopic treatment for bleeding varices, has been shown to be superior to sclerotherapy in adult patients with cirrhosis. To determine the efficacy and safety of endoscopic sclerotherapy and ligation, the 2 methods were compared in a randomized control trial in 49 children with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction who had proven bleeding from esophageal varices. Twenty-four patients were treated with sclerotherapy and 25 with band ligation. No significant differences were found between the sclerotherapy and ligation groups in arresting active index bleeding (100% each) and achieving variceal eradication (91.7% vs. 96%, P =.61). Band ligation eradicated varices in fewer endoscopic sessions than did sclerotherapy (3.9 +/- 1.1 vs. 6.1 +/- 1.7, respectively, P <.0001). The rebleeding rate was significantly higher in the sclerotherapy group (25% vs. 4%, P =.049), as was the rate of major complications (25% vs. 4%, P =.049). After eradication, esophageal variceal recurrence was not significantly different in patients treated by ligation than by sclerotherapy (17.4% vs. 10%, P =.67). In conclusion, variceal band ligation in children is a safe and effective technique that achieves variceal eradication more quickly, with a lower rebleeding rate and fewer complications compared with sclerotherapy.