Endoscopic ligation compared with combined treatment with nadolol and isosorbide mononitrate to prevent recurrent variceal bleeding

Carvedilol and traditional nonselective beta blockers for the secondary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage and portal hypertension related complications among patients with decompensated cirrhosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Carvedilol has limited research on decompensated cirrhosis. This study compared the effects of carvedilol, traditional nonselective beta blockers (NSBBs), including propranolol and nadolol, and other interventions in patients using carvedilol or traditional NSBBs for secondary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage (VH) and portal hypertension (PH)-related complications.

METHODS

A systematic search of databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus, was conducted through October 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating carvedilol or traditional NSBBs for secondary prophylaxis of VH were included. The outcomes were the occurrence of VH and portal PH-related complications, including new or worsening ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and hepatorenal syndrome. A network meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 60 RCTs involving 5,600 patients with a median Child Pugh score of 8.0 (range 6.8-10) were included. The risk of carvedilol plus variceal band ligation (VBL) on VH was lower than placebo (relative risk (RR) 0.24; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.10-0.57), and the risk of carvedilol on new or worsening ascites was lower than placebo (RR = 0.10, 95%CI; 0.01-0.93). Traditional NSBBs plus VBL also had preventive effects on VH compared to placebo (RR = 0.31, 95%CI; 0.18-0.54). However, there were no differences between carvedilol and traditional NSBBs in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol can prevent PH-related complications, including VH and new or worsening ascites, in cirrhosis patients with a history of VH. No significant differences were observed between the effects of carvedilol and traditional NSBBs, both combined with VBL.

Standard technique in Japan for measuring hepatic venous pressure gradient

BACKGROUND

Direct measurement of portal venous pressure (PVP) is invasive, so the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is commonly measured to evaluate portal hypertension (PH). HVPG is the gold standard for estimating PVP but few reports have covered standardized measurement techniques.

METHODS

This study validated standardized techniques for PVP measurement.

RESULTS

In Western countries, electronic transducers are commonly used to measure PVP, whereas the water column method is still frequently applied in Japan. Setting a reference point for accurate PVP measurement is important but complicated. According to Japanese guidelines, the reference point for PVP measurement is 10 cm above the dorsal surface or in the midaxillary line. For simpler determination, the anterior axillary point, defined as the point of convergence between the proximal pectoralis major muscle and arm when both arms are positioned against the trunk in a supine position, can be used as the reference point. New methods, such as endoscopic ultrasound-guided portal pressure gradient, offer less invasive alternatives. Non-invasive methods like elastography measure liver and spleen stiffness, which correlate with HVPG. The Baveno VII criteria incorporate measurements of liver and splenic stiffness for risk stratification. Biomarkers such as type IV collagen, M2BPGi, and FIB-4 score also predict HVPG. The Baveno VII consensus emphasizes the status of HVPG as the gold standard while advocating for non-invasive alternative methods to improve patient care and monitor treatment efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Continued development of non-invasive tests is crucial for safer, more convenient PH management.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Optimal resting heart rate and ascites-related death in patients with cirrhosis and ascites using nonselective beta-blockers (ORCA)

Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) may exacerbate ascites by impairing cardiac function. This study evaluated the impact of achieving a heart rate target of 55-60 beats per minute (bpm) on ascites-related death and complications from worsening ascites in patients with cirrhosis and diuretic-responsive ascites using NSBBs. A retrospective study was conducted at the Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University (2012-2022) and analyzed patients with cirrhosis and diuretic-responsive ascites using NSBBs (propranolol/carvedilol) for variceal bleeding prophylaxis. The outcomes were incidence of ascites-related death and complications from worsening ascites, comparing the achievable target group (heart rate 55-60 bpm) and the unachievable target group (heart rate >60 bpm). A total of 206 patients were included in the study, with a median follow-up time of 20 months. The patients were divided into an achievable target group (n = 75, median heart rate = 58.0 bpm) and an unachievable target group (n = 131, median heart rate = 73.6 bpm). Propranolol was the most used NSBB (95.1%). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for ascites-related death from spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) or refractory ascites (RA) or hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) or hepatic encephalopathy (HE) showed no difference between the groups (adjusted HR 0.59 [0.23-1.54]; p = 0.28). Additionally, no significant difference was found in the incidence of complications between groups, including SBP, RA, HRS, and HE. Achieving a heart rate target of 55-60 bpm with NSBBs for variceal bleeding prophylaxis is safe in patients with diuretic-responsive ascites and cirrhosis.

Age-specific causes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in children

The etiology of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) varies by age, from newborns to adolescents, with some of the causes overlapping between age groups. While particular causes such as vitamin K deficiency and cow's milk protein allergy are limited to specific age groups, occurring only in neonates and infants, others such as erosive esophagitis and gastritis may be identified at all ages. Furthermore, the incidence of UGIB is variable throughout the world and in different hospital settings. In North America and Europe, most UGIBs are non-variceal, associated with erosive esophagitis, gastritis, and gastric and duodenal ulcers. In recent years, the most common causes in some Middle Eastern and Far Eastern countries are becoming similar to those in Western countries. However, variceal bleeding still predominates in certain parts of the world, especially in South Asia. The most severe hemorrhage arises from variceal bleeding, peptic ulceration, and disseminated intravascular coagulation. Hematemesis is a credible indicator of a UGI source of bleeding in the majority of patients. Being familiar with the most likely UGIB causes in specific ages and geographic areas is especially important for adequate orientation in clinical settings, the use of proper diagnostic tests, and rapid initiation of the therapy. The fundamental approach to the management of UGIB includes an immediate assessment of severity, detecting possible causes, and providing hemodynamic stability, followed by early endoscopy. Unusual UGIB causes must always be considered when establishing a diagnosis in the pediatric population because some of them are unique to children. Endoscopic techniques are of significant diagnostic value, and combined with medicaments, may be used for the management of acute bleeding. Finally, surgical treatment is reserved for the most severe bleeding.

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/.

Recent Endoscopic Ultrasound-Related Publications With Potential to Influence Clinical Practice

The field of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has evolved significantly over the last two decades from being a tool of only diagnostic purpose to tissue acquisition and now therapeutic potential. There have been several important publications in the field of EUS in the last few years, which had a major impact in the clinical management of various gastrointestinal disorders. In this review, we discuss four such articles that in our opinion will significantly impact the role of EUS in treating various conditions. The first article is a randomized controlled trial comparing EUS-guided gall bladder drainage with percutaneous gall bladder drainage for high-risk acute cholecystitis. The second article is a randomized controlled trial comparing EUS versus minimally invasive surgery for necrotizing pancreatitis. The third article is a novel human study of EUS-guided portal pressure measurement in patients with portal hypertension. The last article is also a randomized controlled trial evaluating the role of rapid on-site evaluation for EUS-guided fine needle biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions.

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.

Increase in Free Hepatic Venous Pressure Response to Beta-Blockers Predicts Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Patients

Background and Aims

Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are the main drug to prevent portal hypertension. It could alter free hepatic venous pressure (FHVP); however, the significance is unknown. This prospective study was to explore the change of FHVP after use of NSBBs and its predictive value for gastroesophageal varices (GOV) bleeding in cirrhotic patients. Patients and Methods. Cirrhotic patients with medium-large GOV between September 2014 and January 2019 were enrolled. After initial hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement, patients received oral NSBBs. Seven days later, the secondary HVPG was examined to evaluate the FHVP alteration and hemodynamic response. The variceal bleeding between patients with FHVP increased and decreased/unchanged was compared.

Results

A total of 74 patients were enrolled, and 62 patients completed the secondary HVPG measurement and was followed up. The cumulative bleeding rate was significantly higher in patients with FHVP increased ≥ 1.75 mmHg than those with FHVP decreased/unchanged (54.5% vs. 22.5%, p = 0.021), while there was no significant difference in bleeding between HVPG responders and nonresponders (32.6% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.520). For HVPG responders, variceal bleeding in patients with FHVP increased ≥ 1.75 mmHg was significantly more than that in patients with FHVP decreased/unchanged (57.9% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.041). Cox regression analysis showed that change of FHVP was an independent predictor of variceal bleeding.

Conclusion

Increase ≥ 1.75 mmHg in FHVP responding to beta-blockers in cirrhotic patients with GOV indicates high risk of variceal bleeding. Besides HVPG response, change of FHVP should also be valued in hemodynamic evaluation to beta-blockers. This trial is registered with Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-IPR-17012836.

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.

Outcomes of Portal Pressure-Guided Therapy in Decompensated Cirrhosis With Index Variceal Bleed in Asian Cohort

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hemodynamic response to pharmacotherapy improves survival in patients with cirrhosis post variceal bleeding, but long-term outcomes remain unexplored especially in this part of the world. We aimed to study the long-term impact of portal pressure reduction on liver-related outcomes after index variceal bleed.

METHODS

Patients with hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) more than 12 mm Hg after index variceal bleed were given non-selective beta-blockers in combination with variceal band ligation. HVPG response was assessed after 4 weeks. Patients were followed up for rebleed events, survival, additional decompensation events and safety outcomes. Rebleed and other decompensations were compared using competing risks analysis, taking death as competing event, and survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients (29 responders and 19 non-responders) were followed up for a median duration of 45 (24-56) months. Rebleeding rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were 10.3%, 20.7% and 20.7% in responders and 15.8%, 44.7% and 51.1% in non-responders, respectively (Gray's test, P = 0.044). Survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were 89.7%, 72.1% and 51.9% in responders and 89.5%, 44% and 37.7% in non-responders, respectively (log-rank test, P = 0.1). Both severity of liver disease (MELD score, multivariate sub-distributional hazards ratio: 1.166 [1.014-1.341], P = 0.030) and HVPG non-response (multivariate sub-distributional hazards ratio: 2.476 [1.87-7.030], P = 0.045) predicted rebleeding risk while survival was dependent only on severity of liver disease (MELD > 12, multivariate hazards ratio: 2.36 [1.04-5.38], P = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

Baseline severity of liver disease predicted survival and rebleed in these patients. Hemodynamic response, although associated with lower rebleeding rate, had limited impact on survival.

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.

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.

Lowering Portal Pressure Improves Outcomes of Patients With Cirrhosis, With or Without Ascites: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In unselected patients with cirrhosis, those with reductions in hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) to below a defined threshold (responders) have a reduced risk of variceal hemorrhage (VH) and death. We performed a meta-analysis to compare this effect in patients with vs without ascites.

METHODS

We collected data from 15 studies of primary or secondary prophylaxis of VH that reported data on VH and death in responders vs nonresponders. We included studies in which data on ascites at baseline and on other relevant outcomes during follow-up evaluation were available. We performed separate meta-analyses for patients with vs without ascites.

RESULTS

Of the 1113 patients included in the studies, 968 patients (87%) had been treated with nonselective β-blockers. In 993 patients (89%), HVPG response was defined as a decrease of more than 20% from baseline (>10% in 11% of patients) or to less than 12 mm Hg. In the 661 patients without ascites, responders (n = 329; 50%) had significantly lower odds of events (ascites, VH, or encephalopathy) than nonresponders (odds ratio [OR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22-0.56). Odds of death or liver transplantation were also significantly lower among responders than nonresponders (OR, 0.50, 95% CI, 0.32-0.78). In the 452 patients with ascites, responders (n = 188; 42%) had significantly lower odds of events (VH, refractory ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, or hepatorenal syndrome) than nonresponders (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16-0.43). Overall, odds of death or liver transplantation were lower among responders (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29-0.75). No heterogeneity was observed among studies.

CONCLUSIONS

In a meta-analysis of clinical trials, we found that patients with cirrhosis with and without ascites who respond to treatment with nonselective β-blockers (based on reductions in HVPG) have a reduced risk of events, death, or liver transplantation.

The predictive value of baseline hepatic venous pressure gradient for variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients receiving secondary prevention

BACKGROUND

Baseline hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) has been applied for prediction of variceal rebleeding in patients after acute variceal bleeding. However, for patients receiving secondary prevention, there still lacks evidence about the predictive performance of baseline-HVPG for rebleeding. This study aims to investigate the predictive value of baseline-HVPG for variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients receiving secondary prevention.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 122 patients with cirrhosis accepting secondary prevention of variceal rebleeding in a university hospital. All the included patients had HVPG measurements before rebleeding and had at least 1-year follow-up after HVPG measurement unless the rebleeding occurred. The rebleeding rate in patients with different HVPG levels and time-dependent predictive performance of baseline-HVPG were analysed. A Cox regression model and P for trend were used to assess the rebleeding risk.

RESULTS

Variceal rebleeding occurred in 22 (18.0%) patients during 1-year follow-up. No significant difference was observed in rebleeding rate between patients with HVPG <16 mmHg and HVPG ≥16 mmHg (17.91% vs. 26.41%, P=0.200). A decreasing trend was observed in area under the curve of HVPG for predicting rebleeding by time. The multivariate Cox model showed an overall decreasing trend in hazard ratio of rebleeding (vs. patients with HVPG <12 mmHg) for patients with 12≤ HVPG <16 mmHg, 16≤ HVPG <20 mmHg and HVPG ≥20 mmHg; besides, an increasing P for trend was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

A single baseline-HVPG measurement was insufficient for predicting rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis who received secondary prevention.

Blockade of Mas Receptor or Mas-Related G-Protein Coupled Receptor Type D Reduces Portal Pressure in Cirrhotic but Not in Non-cirrhotic Portal Hypertensive Rats

Portal hypertension (PHT) resulting from splanchnic vasodilatation is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cirrhosis. The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) plays an important role in splanchnic vasodilatation in cirrhosis. This study investigated whether acute blockade of the vasodilatory receptors of the alternate RAS, Mas (MasR), Mas-related G-protein coupled receptor type D (MrgD), and angiotensin II type-2 receptor (AT2R) improves PHT in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic portal hypertensive rats and counteracts systemic hypotension associated with angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1R) blockade. Cirrhotic bile duct ligated (BDL) or carbon tetrachloride (CCl₄) injected and non-cirrhotic partial portal vein ligated (PPVL) rats were used for measurement of portal pressure (PP) and mean arterial pressure before and after an intravenous bolus injection of the MasR, MrgD, and AT2R blockers, A779, D-Pro⁷-Ang-(1-7) (D-Pro) and PD123319, respectively. Separate groups of rats received a combined treatment with A779 or D-Pro given 20 min after AT1R blocker losartan. Mesenteric expression of MasR, MrgD, and AT2R and circulating levels of peptide blockers were also measured. Treatment with A779 and D-Pro significantly reduced PP in cirrhotic rat models. Despite rapid degradation of A779 and D-Pro in the rat circulation, the PP lowering effect of the blockers lasted for up to 25 min. We also found that PD123319 reduced PP in CCl₄ rats, possibly by blocking the MasR and/or MrgD since AT2R expression in cirrhotic mesenteric vessels was undetectable, whereas the expression of MasR and MrgD was markedly elevated. While losartan resulted in a marked reduction in PP, its profound systemic hypotensive effect was not counteracted by the combination therapy with A779 or D-Pro. In marked contrast, none of the receptor blockers had any effect on PP in non-cirrhotic PPVL rats whose mesenteric expression of MasR and MrgD was unchanged. We conclude that in addition to MasR, MrgD, a newly discovered receptor for Angiotensin-(1-7), plays a key role in splanchnic vasodilatation in cirrhosis. This implies that both MasR and MrgD are potential therapeutic targets to treat PHT in cirrhotic patients. We also conclude that the alternate RAS may not contribute to the development of splanchnic vasodilatation in non-cirrhotic PHT.

β blockers to prevent decompensation of cirrhosis in patients with clinically significant portal hypertension (PREDESCI): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical decompensation of cirrhosis is associated with poor prognosis. Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), defined by a hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) ≥10 mm Hg, is the strongest predictor of decompensation. This study aimed at assessing whether lowering HVPG with β blockers could decrease the risk of decompensation or death in compensated cirrhosis with CSPH.

METHODS

This study on β blockers to prevent decompensation of cirrhosis with portal hypertension (PREDESCI) was an investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomised controlled trial done in eight hospitals in Spain. We enrolled patients with compensated cirrhosis and CSPH without high-risk varices. All participants had HVPG measurements with assessment of acute HVPG-response to intravenous propranolol. Responders (HVPG-decrease ≥10%) were randomly assigned to propranolol (up to 160 mg twice a day) versus placebo and non-responders to carvedilol (≤25 mg/day) versus placebo. Doses were individually determined during an open-label titration period after which randomisation was done with 1:1 allocation by a centralised web-based system. The primary endpoint was incidence of cirrhosis decompensation (defined as development of ascites, bleeding, or overt encephalopathy) or death. Since death in compensated cirrhosis is usually unrelated to the liver, an intention-to-treat analysis considering deaths unrelated to the liver as competing events was done. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01059396. The trial is now completed.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 18, 2010, and July 31, 2013, 631 patients were evaluated and 201 were randomly assigned. 101 patients received placebo and 100 received active treatment (67 propranolol and 33 carvedilol). The primary endpoint occurred in 16 (16%) of 100 patients in the β blockers group versus 27 (27%) of 101 in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·51, 95% CI 0·26-0·97, p=0·041). The difference was due to a reduced incidence of ascites (HR=0·44, 95%CI=0·20-0·97, p=0·0297). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups. Six patients (four in the β blockers group) had severe adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

Long-term treatment with β blockers could increase decompensation-free survival in patients with compensated cirrhosis and CSPH, mainly by reducing the incidence of ascites.

FUNDING

Spanish Ministries of Health and Economy.

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

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

The soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator riociguat reduces fibrogenesis and portal pressure in cirrhotic rats

In cirrhotic patients, portal hypertension (PHT) deteriorates survival, yet treatment options are limited. A major contributor to increased intrahepatic vasoconstriction in PHT is dysfunctional nitric-oxide signaling. Soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) is the receptor of nitric-oxide and can be stimulated by riociguat. Riociguat is approved for pulmonary hypertension but has not been studied in liver cirrhosis. In this study we assessed the effects of riociguat on PHT and liver fibrosis in cholestatic (bile duct ligation, BDL) and toxic (carbon-tetrachloride, CCl4) rat models. In cirrhotic livers sGC expression was upregulated. In BDL rats, riociguat reduced liver fibrosis and decreased portal pressure without affecting systemic hemodynamics. In an early BDL disease stage, riociguat decreased bile duct proliferation, improved sinusoidal vascular dysfunction and inhibited angiogenesis. In advanced BDL riociguat exhibited anti-inflammatory effects. In CCl4 rats the beneficial effects of riociguat treatment were less pronounced and confined to an early disease stage. Similarly, in patients with cholestatic cirrhosis and PHT nitrates (that induce sGC activity) decreased portal pressure more effectively than in patients with non-cholestatic etiology. We also found an improvement of transaminases in patients with pulmonary hypertension receiving riociguat. Our findings support the clinical development of sGC stimulators in patients with cirrhotic PHT.

Portal vein thrombosis: What surgeons need to know

KEY POINTS

(a) The lifetime risk of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is approximately 1%; (b) The portal vein is formed by the union of the splenic and superior mesenteric veins posterior to the pancreas; (c) Imaging modalities most frequently used to diagnose PVT include sonography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging; (d) Malignancy, hepatic cirrhosis, surgical trauma, and hypercoagulable conditions are the most common risk factors for the development of PVT; (e) PVT eventually leads to the formation of numerous collateral vessels around the thrombosed portal vein; (f) First-line treatment for PVT is therapeutic anticoagulation-it helps prevent the progression of the thrombotic process; (g) Other therapeutic options include surgery and interventional radiographic procedures including mechanical thrombectomy and thrombolysis; (h) Portal biliopathy is a clinicopathologic entity characterized by biliary abnormalities due to portal hypertension secondary to PVT and appears to be more common in cases of extrahepatic PVT.

REPUBLISHED WITH PERMISSION FROM

Quarrie R, Stawicki SP. Portal vein thrombosis: What surgeons need to know. OPUS 12 Scientist 2008;2(3):30-33.

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

BACKGROUND

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

SUMMARY

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

Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension

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

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).

EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement with a simple novel device: a human pilot study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Portal hypertension (PH) is a serious adverse event of liver cirrhosis. The hepatic venous pressure gradient or portal pressure gradient (PPG) accurately reflects the degree of PH and is the single best prognostic indicator in liver disease. This is usually obtained by interventional radiology (IR), although it is not routinely performed. Recently, we developed a simple novel technique for EUS-guided PPG measurement (PPGM). Our animal studies showed excellent correlation between EUS-PPGM and IR-PPGM. We present the first human pilot study of EUS-PPGM in patients with liver disease.

METHODS

EUS-PPGM was performed by experienced endosonographers using a linear echoendoscope, a 25-gauge fine-needle aspiration needle, and a novel compact manometer. The portal vein and hepatic vein (or inferior vena cava) were targeted using a transgastric-transduodenal approach. Clinical parameters of PH were evaluated in each patient. Feasibility was defined as successful PPGM in each patient. Safety was based on adverse events captured in a postprocedural interview.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients underwent EUS-PPGM with 100% technical success and no adverse events. PPG ranged from 1.5 to 19 mm Hg and had excellent correlation with clinical parameters of portal hypertension including the presence of varices (P = .0002), PH gastropathy (P = .007), and thrombocytopenia (P = .036). PPG was increased in patients with high clinical evidence of cirrhosis (P = .005).

CONCLUSION

This novel technique of EUS-PPGM using a 25-gauge needle and compact manometer is feasible and appears safe. Given the availability of EUS and the simplicity of the manometry setup, EUS-guided PPG may represent a promising breakthrough for procuring indispensable information in the management of patients with liver disease.

Diagnosis of cirrhosis and portal hypertension: imaging, non-invasive markers of fibrosis and liver biopsy

The concept of ‘cirrhosis’ is evolving and it is now clear that compensated and decompensated cirrhosis are completely different in terms of prognosis. Furthermore, the term ‘advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD)’ better reflects the continuum of histological changes occurring in the liver, which continue to progress even after cirrhosis has developed, and might regress after removing the etiological factor causing the liver disease. In compensated ACLD, portal hypertension marks the progression to a stage with higher risk of clinical complication and requires an appropriate evaluation and treatment. Invasive tests to diagnose cirrhosis (liver biopsy) and portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement and endoscopy) remain of crucial importance in several difficult clinical scenarios, but their need can be reduced by using different non-invasive tests in standard cases. Among non-invasive tests, the accepted use, major limitations and major benefits of serum markers of fibrosis, elastography and imaging methods are summarized in the present review.

Pediatric gastrointestinal bleeding: Perspectives from the Italian Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology

There are many causes of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in children, and this condition is not rare, having a reported incidence of 6.4%. Causes vary with age, but show considerable overlap; moreover, while many of the causes in the pediatric population are similar to those in adults, some lesions are unique to children. The diagnostic approach for pediatric GIB includes definition of the etiology, localization of the bleeding site and determination of the severity of bleeding; timely and accurate diagnosis is necessary to reduce morbidity and mortality. To assist medical care providers in the evaluation and management of children with GIB, the "Gastro-Ped Bleed Team" of the Italian Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (SIGENP) carried out a systematic search on MEDLINE via PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) to identify all articles published in English from January 1990 to 2016; the following key words were used to conduct the electronic search: "upper GIB" and "pediatric" [all fields]; "lower GIB" and "pediatric" [all fields]; "obscure GIB" and "pediatric" [all fields]; "GIB" and "endoscopy" [all fields]; "GIB" and "therapy" [all fields]. The identified publications included articles describing randomized controlled trials, reviews, case reports, cohort studies, case-control studies and observational studies. References from the pertinent articles were also reviewed. This paper expresses a position statement of SIGENP that can have an immediate impact on clinical practice and for which sufficient evidence is not available in literature. The experts participating in this effort were selected according to their expertise and professional qualifications.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis 2015

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology revised the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis in 2015. Eighty-three clinical questions were selected, and a literature search was performed for the clinical questions with use of the MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases for the period between 1983 and June 2012. Manual searching of the latest important literature was added until August 2015. The guidelines were developed with use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. This digest version in English introduces selected clinical questions and statements related to the management of liver cirrhosis and its complications. Branched-chain amino acids relieve hypoalbuminemia and hepatic encephalopathy and improve quality of life. Nucleoside analogues and peginterferon plus ribavirin combination therapy improve the prognosis of patients with hepatitis B virus related liver cirrhosis and hepatitis C related compensated liver cirrhosis, respectively, although the latter therapy may be replaced by direct-acting antivirals. For liver cirrhosis caused by primary biliary cirrhosis and active autoimmune hepatitis, urosodeoxycholic acid and steroid are recommended, respectively. The most adequate modalities for the management of variceal bleeding are the endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophageal varices and the balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration following endoscopic obturation with cyanoacrylate for gastric varices. Beta-blockers are useful for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding. The V2 receptor antagonist tolvaptan is a useful add-on therapy in careful diuretic therapy for ascites. Albumin infusion is useful for the prevention of paracentesis-induced circulatory disturbance and renal failure. In addition to disaccharides, the nonabsorbable antibiotic rifaximin is useful for the management of encephalopathy. Anticoagulation therapy is proposed for patients with acute-onset or progressive portal vein thrombosis.

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.

Multicentre randomised controlled study comparing carvedilol with variceal band ligation in the prevention of variceal rebleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Rebleeding after an initial oesophageal variceal haemorrhage remains a significant problem despite therapy with band ligation, non-selective β-blockers or a combination of these. Carvedilol is a vasodilating non-selective β-blocker with alpha-1 receptor and calcium channel antagonism. A recent study has suggested it is effective in the prevention of a first variceal bleed. Our aim was to compare oral carvedilol with variceal band ligation (VBL) in the prevention of rebleeding following a first variceal bleed.

METHODS

Patients who were stable 5 days after presentation with a first oesophageal variceal haemorrhage and had not been taking β-blockers were randomised to oral carvedilol or VBL. Patients were followed-up after one week, monthly, then every 3 months. The primary end point was variceal rebleeding on intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

64 patients were randomised, 33 to carvedilol and 31 to VBL. 58 (90.6%) patients had alcohol related liver disease. Age and Child-Pugh score were similar in both groups at baseline. Median follow-up was 26.3 (interquartile range [IQR] 10.2-46.6)months. Compliance was 68% and 65% for carvedilol and VBL respectively (p=0.993) and serious adverse events between the two groups were similar (p=0.968). Variceal rebleeding occurred during follow-up in 12 (36.4%) and 11 (35.5%) patients in the carvedilol and VBL groups, respectively (p=0.857), with 9 (27.3%) and 16 (51.6%) deaths in each group, respectively (p=0.110).

CONCLUSIONS

Carvedilol is not superior to VBL in the prevention of variceal rebleeding. The trend to a survival benefit for patients taking this drug compared with those undergoing banding requires further exploration.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Beta-blockers in portal hypertension: new developments and controversies

There are many studies investigating the role of non-selective beta-blockers in portal hypertension. Satisfactory reduction in portal pressure is possible in a third to half of patients with propranolol and nadolol, although combining these drugs with nitrates may be more effective. Carvedilol is a more potent agent than propranolol in reducing portal pressure, particularly in non-responders, and is better tolerated. All these drugs have been studied in primary and secondary prophylaxis, sometimes in combination with band ligation and/or nitrates. There is some evidence to support combining these agents with band ligation, despite a lack of survival benefit and increased adverse events. Hemodynamic monitoring can help select non-responders who may benefit from additional therapies such as band ligation, as lack of response is associated with worse outcomes. Propranolol should be used with caution in patients with refractory ascites, although the current evidence is not of sufficient quality to justify not using these drugs in such situations. Beta-blockers have been shown to reduce bacterial translocation and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis.

Secondary prophylaxis for esophageal variceal bleeding

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

The changing role of beta-blocker therapy in patients with cirrhosis

Cirrhosis is a leading cause of death in the United States and worldwide. Beta-blockers have been established in numerous studies as part of the cornerstone of the medical management of cirrhosis, particularly in the primary and secondary prevention of variceal hemorrhage. However, new evidence has cautioned the use of beta-blockers in patients with end-stage cirrhosis and refractory ascites. In this article, we review the beneficial effects of beta-blocker therapy, the potential harms of aggressive beta-blocker therapy, and provide suggestions regarding the appropriate use of this class of medications in patients with cirrhosis.

Variceal rebleeding: use of drug therapy and endoscopic band ligation

Patients surviving a variceal bleed are at high risk of re-bleeding with a mortality of 25-50% during a 1-2 year follow-up. Several studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated reduced rates of oesophageal variceal rebleeding with the use of β-blockers. However, their use can be limited by contraindications or intolerance to therapy. Other trials have shown that addition of nitrates may improve the efficacy of β-blockers in prevention of variceal re-bleeding. Endoscopic variceal band ligation (VBL) has been shown in meta-analyses to decrease the rates of rebleeding and mortality compared with endoscopic sclerotherapy. Studies comparing combined drug therapy with VBL have shown similar rebleeding rates although there is a suggestion that survival may be higher in those given drug therapy. Recent data suggest that combined VBL and drug therapy reduces the risk of rebleeding from oesophageal varices compared with either therapy alone; however there appears to be no reduction in overall mortality.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding remains a commonly encountered diagnosis for acute care surgeons. Initial stabilization and resuscitation of patients is imperative. Stable patients can have initiation of medical therapy and localization of the bleeding, whereas persistently unstable patients require emergent endoscopic or operative intervention. Minimally invasive techniques have surpassed surgery as the treatment of choice for most upper GI bleeding.

Rebleeding prophylaxis improves outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. A multicenter case-control study

Outcome of variceal bleeding (VB) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is unknown. We compared outcomes after VB in patients with and without HCC. All patients with HCC and esophageal VB admitted between 2007 and 2010 were included. Follow-up was prolonged until death, transplantation, or June 2011. For each patient with HCC, a patient without HCC matched by age and Child-Pugh class was selected. A total of 292 patients were included, 146 with HCC (Barcelona Classification of Liver Cancer class 0-3 patients, A [in 25], B [in 29], C [in 45], and D [in 41]) and 146 without HCC. No differences were observed regarding previous use of prophylaxis, clinical presentation, endoscopic findings, and initial endoscopic treatment. Five-day failure was similar (25% in HCC versus 18% in non-HCC; P = 0.257). HCC patients had greater 6-week rebleeding rate (16 versus 7%, respectively; P = 0.025) and 6-week mortality (30% versus 15%; P = 0.003). Fewer patients with HCC received secondary prophylaxis after bleeding (77% versus 89%; P = 0.009), and standard combination therapy was used less frequently (58% versus 70%; P = 0.079). Secondary prophylaxis failure was more frequent (50% versus 31%; P = 0.001) and survival significantly shorter in patients with HCC (median survival: 5 months versus greater than 38 months in patients without HCC; P < 0.001). Lack of prophylaxis increased rebleeding and mortality. On multivariate analysis Child-Pugh score, presence of HCC, portal vein thrombosis, and lack of secondary prophylaxis were predictors of death.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HCC and VB have worse prognosis than patients with VB without HCC. Secondary prophylaxis offers survival benefit in HCC patients.

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic variceal ligation to prevent rebleeding in children with esophageal varices

After an episode of acute bleeding from esophageal varices, patients are at a high risk for recurrent bleeding and death. However, there are few reports regarding the long-term results of secondary prophylaxis using endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) against variceal rebleeding in pediatrics. Thirty-seven, who were followed for over 3 yr post-eradication, were included in the study. The mean duration of follow up after esophageal variceal eradication was 6.4±1.9 yr. The mean time required to achieve the eradication of varices was 3.25 months. The mean number of sessions and O-bands needed to eradicate varices was 1.9±1.2 and 3.8±1.5, respectively. During the period before the first EVL treatment, 145 episodes of bleedings developed in 37 children. Over the 3 yr of follow-up after variceal eradication, only 4 episodes of rebleeding developed in 4 of 37 patients. The four rebleeding episodes consisted of an esophageal variceal bleed, a gastric variceal bleed, a duodenal ulcer bleed, and a bleed caused by hemorrhagic gastritis. There was no mortality during long-term follow up after variceal eradication. During long-term follow up after esophageal variceal eradication using solely EVL in children with esophageal variceal bleeds, rebleeding episodes and recurrence of esophageal varices were rare. EVL is a safe and highly effective method for the long-term prophylaxis of variceal rebleeding in children with portal hypertension.

Variceal and other portal hypertension related bleeding

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

Portal hypertension and gastrointestinal bleeding: Diagnosis, prevention and management

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

Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Patients with Portal Hypertension

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

[Mexican consensus on portal hypertension]

The aim of the Mexican Consensus on Portal Hypertension was to develop documented guidelines to facilitate clinical practice when dealing with key events of the patient presenting with portal hypertension and variceal bleeding. The panel of experts was made up of Mexican gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and endoscopists, all distinguished professionals. The document analyzes themes of interest in the following modules: preprimary and primary prophylaxis, acute variceal hemorrhage, and secondary prophylaxis. The management of variceal bleeding has improved considerably in recent years. Current information indicates that the general management of the cirrhotic patient presenting with variceal bleeding should be carried out by a multidisciplinary team, with such an approach playing a major role in the final outcome. The combination of drug and endoscopic therapies is recommended for initial management; vasoactive drugs should be started as soon as variceal bleeding is suspected and maintained for 5 days. After the patient is stabilized, urgent diagnostic endoscopy should be carried out by a qualified endoscopist, who then performs the corresponding endoscopic variceal treatment. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be regarded as an integral part of treatment, started upon hospital admittance and continued for 5 days. If there is treatment failure, rescue therapies should be carried out immediately, taking into account that interventional radiology therapies are very effective in controlling refractory variceal bleeding. These guidelines have been developed for the purpose of achieving greater clinical efficacy and are based on the best evidence of portal hypertension that is presently available.

Esophageal variceal ligation in the secondary prevention of variceal bleeding: Result of long term follow-up

Introduction

Long-term outcome of patients after band ligation have been poorly defined. Therefore, we conducted a long-term follow-up study to delineate the outcome of ligation in patients with portal hypertension in the Hassan II university hospital, Fes, Morocco.

Methods

Over 118 months patients treated by endoscopic variceal ligation were received regular follow- up and detailed clinical assessment of at least 24 months.

Results

One hundred twenty five patients were followed up for a mean of 31 months (range 12-107 months). Obliteration of the varices was achieved in 89.6 % (N = 112) of patients, with 3 +/-1.99 (range 1-8) endoscopy sessions over a period of 14 + /-6.8 weeks (range 3-28). The percentage of variceal recurrence during follow-up after ligation was 20.5 % (N = 23). Recurrence were observed in a mean of 22 months +/- 7.3 (range 3-48). Bleeding rate from recurrent varices was 30.4 % (7/23). Rebleeding from esophageal ulcers occurred in 5.6 % (7/125) of patients. Portal hypertensive gastropathy before and after eradication of varices was 17.6% (N = 22) and 44.6% (N = 50) respectively; p< 0.05. Fundal gastric varices was 30.4% (N = 38) and 35.7% (N = 40) before and after eradication of varices respectively; p> 0.05. The overall mortality was 4 % (N = 5).

Conclusion

Band ligation was an effective technical approach for variceal obliteration with low rates of variceal recurrence, rebleeding and development of gastric varices. Furthermore, it was associated with frequent development of portal hypertensive gastropathy.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt vs endoscopic therapy in preventing variceal rebleeding

AIM: To compare early use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) with endoscopic treatment (ET) for the prophylaxis of recurrent variceal bleeding.

METHODS: In-patient data were collected from 190 patients between January 2007 and June 2010 who suffured from variceal bleeding. Patients who were older than 75 years; previously received surgical treatment or endoscopic therapy for variceal bleeding; and complicated with hepatic encephalopathy or hepatic cancer, were excluded from this research. Thirty-five cases lost to follow-up were also excluded. Retrospective analysis was done in 126 eligible cases. Among them, 64 patients received TIPS (TIPS group) while 62 patients received endoscopic therapy (ET group). The relevant data were collected by patient review or telephone calls. The occurrence of rebleeding, hepatic encephalopathy or other complications, survival rate and cost of treatment were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: During the follow-up period (median, 20.7 and 18.7 mo in TIPS and ET groups, respectively), rebleeding from any source occurred in 11 patients in the TIPS group as compared with 31 patients in the ET group (Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test, P = 0.000). Rebleeding rates at any time point (6 wk, 1 year and 2 year) in the TIPS group were lower than in the ET group (Bonferroni correction α’ = α/3). Eight patients in the TIPS group and 16 in the ET group died with the cumulative survival rates of 80.6% and 64.9% (Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test χ² = 4.864, P = 0.02), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to 6-wk survival rates (Bonferroni correction α’ = α/3). However, significant differences were observed between the two groups in the 1-year survival rates (92% and 79%) and the 2-year survival rates (89% and 64.9%) (Bonferroni correction α’ = α/3). No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in the occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy (12 patients in TIPS group and 5 in ET group, Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test, χ² = 3.103, P = 0.08). The average total cost for the TIPS group was higher than for ET group (Wilcxon-Mann Whitney test, 52 678 RMB vs 38 844 RMB, P < 0.05), but hospitalization frequency and hospital stay during follow-up period were lower (Wilcxon-Mann Whitney test, 0.4 d vs 1.3 d, P = 0.01; 5 d vs 19 d, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Early use of TIPS is more effective than endoscopic treatment in preventing variceal rebleeding and improving survival rate, and does not increase occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy.