Lack of effect of propranolol in the prevention of large oesophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis: a randomized trial. French-Speaking Club for the Study of Portal Hypertension

B-Blockers in Liver Cirrhosis: A Wonder Drug for Every Stage of Portal Hypertension? A Narrative Review

In cirrhotic patients, non-selective b-blockers (NSBBs) constitute the reference treatment of choice as monotherapy or combined with band ligation for the prevention of first variceal bleeding and rebleeding, respectively. Furthermore, the last Baveno VII guidelines recommended carvedilol, a b-blocker with additional anti-a1 receptor activity, in all compensated cirrhotics with clinically significant portal hypertension, to prevent liver decompensation. Interestingly enough, NSBBs have been reported to have a potentially positive impact on the short-term mortality of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure. However, concerns remain about the use of b-blockers in the presence of severe complications, such as refractory ascites, hepatorenal syndrome, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, or established cirrhotic cardiomyopathy. In addition, it has not been verified yet whether carvedilol supersedes all the other NSBBs in every stage of liver disease, even when severe complications have developed. Therefore, this review aims to illustrate recent data regarding the potential role of b-blockers across all stages of liver disease, beyond the primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and address the authors' proposals on the use of NSBBs concerning the severity of liver disease and the patient's performance status.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Non-selective beta-blockers increase overall and liver mortality in alcoholic cirrhosis with MELD ≥ 12 over 5 years of follow-up

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Non-cardioselective beta-blocker (NSBB) effects on mortality in cirrhosis are controversial. We evaluated the impact of NSBBs on mortality according to liver severity and mortality cause.

METHODS

Two hundred and fifty-eight patients with alcoholic cirrhosis were included in a retroprospective cohort: 129 NSBB-treated and 129 controls. The NSBB group had the following significant baseline differences: higher MELD, more frequent previous gastrointestinal bleeding, large oesophageal varices (OV) and lower heart rate. Propranolol dose was 160 mg/d in 81% of NSBB patients.

RESULTS

(i) Liver function: during 5.3 ± 2.6 years of follow-up, MELD progression was higher in NSBB patients: 1 (-1-4) than in controls: 0 (-1-1) (P = .017). (ii) Overall survival: no significant differences were observed between NSBBs and controls (Kaplan-Meier curves: P = .291). In multivariate Cox analysis, baseline MELD interacted with NSBB (P = .011). Thus, the NSBB hazard ratio (HR) was 0.99 (0.50-1.98) in MELD < 12 vs 3.17 (1.19-8.42) in MELD ≥ 12. (iii) Liver survival: NSBB decreased liver survival (Kaplan-Meier: P = .031). In multivariate Cox analysis, baseline MELD interacted with NSBB (P < .001). The NSBB HR was 0.81 (0.30-2.19) in MELD < 12 vs 6.23 (1.94-20.0) in MELD ≥ 12. In competing risk multivariate analysis for liver mortality, the MELD-NSBB interaction was significant (P < .001): the NSBB HR was 1.02 (0.36-2.91) in MELD < 12 vs 9.24 (3.18-26.9) in MELD ≥ 12. 4) Non-liver survival: contrastingly, non-liver survival was increased by NSBBs, especially in MELD ≥ 12 (competing Kaplan-Meier: P = .044). These results were confirmed in propensity risk score (PRS)-matched patients.

CONCLUSION

In alcoholic cirrhosis with rather high propranolol doses, overall and liver survival are significantly aggravated when MELD is ≥12.

Fibrosis index predicts variceal bleeding and reduces need for nonselective beta-blocker in compensated cirrhosis with initial small esophageal varices without red-color sign

Background

Various non-invasive markers predicting hepatic fibrosis are poor predictors of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB). Elastography performs well but resource-limited. Controversy for small EV prevention also exists. We aim to investigate if a non-invasive marker could predict subsequent EVB within 1 and 2 years in patients with compensated liver cirrhosis (CLC), initial small EV without red-color sign (RCS), without use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL). This marker would also be tested if it could help reduce use of NSBB, thereby avoiding potential side effects and saving medical costs.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, 6,803 CLC patients fulfilling the inclusion-exclusion criteria were enrolled between 2001 and 2018, and were followed-up for 1 year, 2 years. The primary outcomes were subsequent EVB within 1 and 2 years of enrollment. Another 281 CLC patients with NSBB use were compared for additional outcome analysis.

Results

In total, 539 patients and 710 patients experienced EVB within 1 year and 2 years, respectively. The fibrosis index (FI) with cut-off value of 3.95 showed a negative predictive value (NPV) of 94.3% and an area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of 62.95% for predicting subsequent EVB within 1 year. The EVB and mortality of patients with FI <3.95 and not taking NSBB were significantly lower than those of the other 3 groups. Similar results were demonstrated within 2 years.

Conclusions

In CLC patients with initial small EV and no RCS, low FI scores showed a high NPV and moderate AUROC in predicting subsequent EVB and mortalities, signifying clinically non-significant portal hypertension. Patients with low FI scores and not taking NSBB had significantly lowest EVB and mortality. The medical cost savings for cutting NSBB in these patients would be estimated at least $3 million per year in the U.S. Further randomized control trial study needed to validate this screening tool.

Beta-blockers in cirrhosis: Evidence-based indications and limitations

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are the mainstay of treatment for portal hypertension in the setting of liver cirrhosis. Randomised controlled trials demonstrated their efficacy in preventing initial variceal bleeding and subsequent rebleeding. Recent evidence indicates that NSBBs could prevent liver decompensation in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Despite solid data favouring NSBB use in cirrhosis, some studies have highlighted relevant safety issues in patients with end-stage liver disease, particularly with refractory ascites and infection. This review summarises the evidence supporting current recommendations and restrictions of NSBB use in patients with cirrhosis.

Propranolol plus endoscopic ligation for variceal bleeding in patients with significant ascites: Propensity score matching analysis

The use of beta-blockers in decompensated cirrhosis accompanying ascites is still under debate. The aim of this study was to compare overall survival (OS) and incidence of cirrhotic complications between endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) only and EVL + non-selective beta-blocker (NSBB) combination therapy in cirrhotic patients with significant ascites (≥grade 2).This retrospective study included 271 consecutive cirrhotic patients with ascites who were treated with EVL only or EVL + NSBB combination therapy as a primary prophylaxis of esophageal varices. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching was performed between the 2 groups to minimize baseline difference.Median observation period was 42.1 months (interquartile range, 18.4-75.1 months). All patients had deteriorated liver function: 81.1% Child-Pugh class B and 18.9% Child-Pugh class C. All-cause mortality was significantly higher in the EVL + NSBB group than in the EVL only group not only in non-matched cohort, but also in matched cohort (48.9% vs 31.2%; P = .039). More people died from hepatic failure in the EVL + NSBB group than that in the EVL only group (40.5% vs 20.0%; P = .020). However, the incidence of variceal bleeding, hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) was not significantly different between the 2 groups.The use of NSBB might worsen the prognosis of cirrhotic patients with significant ascites. These results suggest that EVL alone is a more appropriate treatment option for prophylaxis of esophageal varices than propranolol combination therapy when patients have significant ascites.

Use of Nonselective β-Blockers in Patients With End-Stage Liver Disease and Select Complications

Objective: To review the literature and recommendations for nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) in the setting of variceal bleeding prophylaxis and decompensated liver disease. Data Sources: Literature search of MEDLINE was performed (1988 to October 2019) using the following search terms: cirrhosis, advanced cirrhosis, β-blocker, decompensation, prophylaxis. Abstracts, peer-reviewed publications, clinical practice guidelines, and product monographs were reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Relevant English language studies and those conducted in humans were considered for analysis and inclusion. Data Synthesis: Evidence that suggests that NSBBs are harmful in advanced cirrhosis is overshadowed by confounding variables and small patient populations. The majority of the available evidence suggests neutral or beneficial effects on mortality with continuation of NSBBs despite liver disease progression. Based on the available literature, guidelines, and expert consensuses, NSBBs can be considered within this patient population and may have a positive impact on the majority of these patients. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review summarizes current place in therapy for NSBBs in the setting of cirrhosis and variceal bleeding prophylaxis. It also includes a discussion of the literature for use of NSBBs within the setting of different acute decompensations in which the data and recommendations for use are less clear. Conclusions: Recent evidence shows neutral or positive results for NSBB use in particular decompensation subgroups, which suggests that NSBBs can be used cautiously with close monitoring in patients with advanced cirrhosis. Questions still remain regarding optimal agent and dose and whether agents can be safely restarted after an acute decompensation episode.

Changes in transient elastography in early cirrhotic patients after receiving nonselective B-blocker for primary variceal bleeding prophylaxis: Three-month follow up

Background and Aim

A nonselective B‐blocker (NSBB) is recommended for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. The impact of treatment with NSBB on modulating transient elastography (TE) has not been reported. The aim of the study is to investigate the effect of NSBB treatment on TE in early cirrhotic patients.

Methods

In this prospective study, we enrolled all early cirrhotic patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and showed small esophageal varices (EV) at our institute for a period of 1 year. The TE and heart rate (HR) of all participants were measured before and 3 months after receiving NSBB.

Results

Thirty‐nine patients receiving propanolol for 3 months were analyzed. There were 16 patients in the HR responder group (41%) and 23 patients in the HR nonresponder group (59%). The reduction of TE was preferably found in the HR responder group compared with the HR nonresponder group, in which mean changes in TE were −5.6 and −0.7 kPa, respectively (P = 0.23). In addition, we categorized the patients using their TE responses. Twenty‐five patients (64.1%) showed reduced TE during the follow‐up period, in which the mean TE value change was −2.94 kPa. Using correlation analysis, TE and HR responses were insignificantly correlated (r = 0.23, P = 0.15).

Conclusion

The NSBB administered for 3 months mainly improved TE value in early cirrhotic patients even though the changes of HR and TE did not correlate. Further study is needed to confirm whether the monitoring of TE change may be a better predictor for pharmacological response than the HR response.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha₁-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's 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 08 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I² values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I² = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I² = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I² = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Pharmacologic prevention of variceal bleeding and rebleeding

BACKGROUND

Variceal bleeding is a major complication of portal hypertension, which is associated with significant mortality. Moreover, patients surviving a variceal bleeding episode have very high risk of rebleeding, which is associated with mortality as high as that of the first bleed. Because of this, prevention of bleeding from gastroesophageal varices has been one of the main therapeutic goals since the advent of the first effective therapies for portal hypertension.

AIM

This review deals with the present day state-of-the-art pharmacological prevention of variceal bleeding in primary and secondary prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Pharmacological therapy aims to decrease portal pressure (PP) by acting on the pathophysiological mechanisms of portal hypertension such as increased hepatic vascular tone and splanchnic vasodilatation. Propranolol and nadolol block the beta-1 in the heart and the peripheral beta-2 adrenergic receptors. Beta-1 blockade of cardiac receptors reduces heart rate and cardiac output and subsequently decreases flow into splanchnic circulation. Beta-2 blockade leads to unopposed alpha-1 adrenergic activity that causes splanchnic vasoconstriction and reduction of portal inflow. Both effects contribute to reduction in PP. Carvedilol is more powerful in reducing hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) than traditional nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and achieves good hemodynamic response in nearly 75 % of cases. Simvastatin and atorvastatin improve endothelial dysfunction mainly by enhancing endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) expression and phosphorylation and NO production. In addition, statins deactivate hepatic stellate cells and ameliorate hepatic fibrogenesis. These effects cause a decrease in HVPG and improve liver microcirculation and hepatocyte perfusion in patients with cirrhosis. In addition, several promising drugs under development may change the management of portal hypertension in the coming years.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a background on the most important aspects of the treatment of portal hypertension in patients with compensated and decompensated liver cirrhosis. However, despite the great improvement in the prevention of variceal bleeding over the last years, further therapeutic options are needed.

Can Non-Selective Beta-Blockers (NSBBs) Prevent Enlargement of Small Esophageal Varices in Patients with Cirrhosis? A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are recommended for prophylaxis of first variceal bleeding in patients of cirrhosis with large esophageal varices. However, the data is conflicting whether NSBBs can also prevent growth of small esophageal varices to large size.

AIM

To perform a meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials comparing NSBBs with placebo for prevention of development of large esophageal varices in patients of cirrhosis with small esophageal varices.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct, and Cochrane library databases were searched for relevant papers. A meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as the effect sizes.

RESULTS

Overall, 314 trials were initially retrieved from the database searches, of which five randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The incidence of development of large varices (RR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.29-2.86; P = 0.87) was similar between NSBB and placebo groups. However, the heterogeneity among studies was significant (P < 0.01) with an I² of 93%. The incidences of first variceal bleeding (RR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.25-2.12; P = 0.55) and death (RR = 0.76, 95%CI: 0.50-1.15; P = 0.19) were also similar between NSBB and placebo groups; with no heterogeneity. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the NSBB group compared with the placebo group (RR = 4.66, 95%CI: 1.36-15.91; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis indicate that NSBBs are not effective in preventing growth of small varices and may lead to significant adverse effects. Hence, NSBBs should not be recommended for cirrhotic patients with small varices.

Recent advances in the management of variceal bleeding

Acute haemorrhage from ruptured gastroesophageal varices is perhaps the most serious consequence of uncontrolled portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients. It represents a medical emergency and is associated with a high morbidity and mortality. In those who survive the initial bleeding event, the risks of further bleeding and other decompensated events remain high. The past 30 years have seen a slow evolution of management strategies that have greatly improved the chances of surviving a variceal haemorrhage. Liver cirrhosis is a multi-staged pathological process and we are moving away from a one-size-fits-all therapeutic approach. Instead there is an increasing recognition that a more nuanced approach will yield optimal survival for patients. This approach seeks to risk stratify patients according to their disease stage. The exact type and timing of treatment offered can then be varied to suit individual patients. At the same time, the toolbox of available therapy is expanding and there is a continual stream of emerging evidence to support the use of endoscopic and pharmacological therapies. In this review, we present a summary of the treatment options for a variety of different clinical scenarios and for when there is failure to control bleeding. We have conducted a detailed literature review and presented up-to-date evidence from either primary randomized-controlled trials or meta-analyses that support current treatment algorithms.

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

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

Prevention and treatment of variceal haemorrhage in 2017

Variceal haemorrhage is a major complication of portal hypertension that still causes high mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Improved knowledge of the pathophysiology of portal hypertension has recently led to a more comprehensive approach to prevent all the complications of this condition. Thus, optimal treatment of portal hypertension requires a strategy that takes into account the clinical stage of the disease and all the major variables that affect the risk of progression to the next stage and death. In patients with compensated liver disease, the correction of factors influencing the progression of fibrosis, in particular aetiologic factors, is now feasible in many cases and should be achieved to prevent the development or progression of gastroesophageal varices and hepatic decompensation. Once gastroesophageal varices have developed, non-selective beta-blockers remain the cornerstone of therapy. Carvedilol provides a greater decrease in portal pressure and is currently indicated as a first-choice therapy for primary prophylaxis. The treatment of acute variceal haemorrhage includes a combination of vasoactive drugs, antibiotics and endoscopic variceal band ligation. In high-risk patients, the early use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) lowers the risk of re-bleeding and improves survival. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt is the choice for uncontrolled variceal bleeding; a self-expandable metal stent or balloon tamponade can be used as a bridging measure. The combination of non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal band ligation reduces the risk of recurrent variceal bleeding and improves survival. In these cases, statins seem to further improve survival. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt is indicated in patients who rebleed during secondary prophylaxis.

Beta blockers and cirrhosis, 2016

To date, non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) are a cornerstone in the treatment of portal hypertension. During the last years, our understanding of the potential benefits of early initiation of NSBB treatment, their effects beyond the prevention of variceal bleeding (i.e., their non-hemodyamic effects), as well as potential detrimental effects in patients with advanced disease has continuously evolved. In addition, we have learned that not all NSBBs are equal. Due to its additional anti-α1-adrenergic activity, carvedilol has been shown to be more potent in decreasing portal pressure, but might lead to more pronounced decreases in systemic arterial pressure, when compared to conventional NSBBs. It might be particularly beneficial in 'early' portal hypertension, when potential detrimental effects on systemic hemodynamics are less critical. In contrast, there is increasing evidence that the use of carvedilol or high NSBB doses should be carefully scrutinized in patients with severe or refractory ascites. Our review summarizes the current knowledge on the use of NSBBs for preventing variceal bleeding and other decompensating events and provides guidance for their safe use in hemodynamically 'vulnerable' patient populations. Finally, we also highlight areas for further research.

Coagulation parameters and major bleeding in critically ill patients with cirrhosis

Disturbances of coagulation and hemostasis are common in patients with liver cirrhosis. The typical laboratory pattern mimics disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). The aim of this study was to assess the impact of routine coagulation parameters in critically ill cirrhosis patients with regard to new onset of major bleeding and outcome. A total of 1,493 critically ill patients were studied prospectively. Routine coagulation parameters were assessed, and the DIC score was calculated based on platelets, fibrinogen, d-dimer, and prothrombin index. New onset of major bleeding during the stay at the intensive care unit and mortality were assessed. Patients were followed for 1 year. Two hundred eleven patients of the cohort had liver cirrhosis. Platelets, fibrinogen, prothrombin index, activated partial thromboplastin time, and d-dimer as well as the DIC score differed significantly between patients with and without cirrhosis (P < 0.001 for all). Moreover, fibrinogen, platelets, and activated partial thromboplastin time (but not prothrombin index) differed significantly between cirrhosis patients with and without major bleeding (P < 0.01 for all). Bleeding on admission, platelet count <30 < 10(9) /L, fibrinogen level <60 mg/dL, and activated partial thromboplastin time values >100 seconds were the strongest independent predictors for new onset of major bleeding in multivariate regression analysis. One-year mortality in cirrhosis patients with and without major bleeding was 89% and 68%, respectively (P < 0.05 between groups).

CONCLUSION

Abnormal coagulation parameters and high DIC scores (primarily due to fibrinogen and platelets) correspond to increased bleeding risk in patients with liver cirrhosis in the intensive care unit, and fibrinogen and platelet count were identified as the best routine coagulation parameters for prediction of new onset of major bleeding; however, further studies are required to evaluate the potential therapeutic implications of these findings. (Hepatology 2016;64:556-568).

U.K. guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients

These updated guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage have been commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee (CSSC) of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the liver section of the BSG. The original guidelines which this document supersedes were written in 2000 and have undergone extensive revision by 13 members of the Guidelines Development Group (GDG). The GDG comprises elected members of the BSG liver section, representation from British Association for the Study of the Liver (BASL) and Liver QuEST, a nursing representative and a patient representative. The quality of evidence and grading of recommendations was appraised using the AGREE II tool.The nature of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients with its complex range of complications makes rigid guidelines inappropriate. These guidelines deal specifically with the management of varices in patients with cirrhosis under the following subheadings: (1) primary prophylaxis; (2) acute variceal haemorrhage; (3) secondary prophylaxis of variceal haemorrhage; and (4) gastric varices. They are not designed to deal with (1) the management of the underlying liver disease; (2) the management of variceal haemorrhage in children; or (3) variceal haemorrhage from other aetiological conditions.

Prevention of portal hypertension: from variceal development to clinical decompensation

Pharmacological treatment of portal hypertension (PH) has been exclusively devoted to gastroesophageal varices-related events at different frameworks, including prophylactic, emergency, or preventive therapy. The goals of treatment are to avoid the first bleeding episode, stop active bleeding, and prevent bleeding recurrence, respectively. The objective of preprimary prophylaxis (PPP) is to avoid variceal development, and therefore it necessarily deals with patients with cirrhosis at earlier stages of the disease. At these earlier stages, nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) have been ineffective in preventing the development of varices and other complications of PH. Therefore, treatment should not rely on NSBB. It is possible that, at these earlier stages, etiological treatment of liver disease itself could prevent progression of PH. This review will focus mainly on early treatment of PH, because, if successful, it may translate into histological-hemodynamic improvements, avoiding not only variceal development, but also other PH-related complications, such as ascites and portosystemic encephalopathy. Moreover, the advent of new therapies may allow not only the prevention of the complications of PH, but also the chance of a substantial degree of regression in the cirrhotic process, with the possible prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

Gastroesophageal varices are present in almost half of patients with cirrhosis at the time of initial diagnosis. Variceal bleeding occurs in 25% to 35% of patients with cirrhosis. Effective and timely care can prevent variceal bleeding (primary prophylaxis). For example, clinical studies demonstrate that both beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation are effective in preventing a first episode of variceal bleeding. The major challenge is to screen patients in a timely manner and institute a form of therapy that has the highest chance of success in terms of patient compliance and effectiveness.

Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding is an important and long-debated topic in the management of patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices. Prophylaxis is recommended for high-risk patients with small esophageal varices (advanced liver disease and/or presence of red wale marks) and those with medium/large varices. Nonselective β-blockers and endoscopic band ligation have been shown to be equally effective in primary prevention of variceal bleeding and are the only currently recommended therapies. Controversy still exists, however, regarding which one of these strategies is preferred. This article reviews the established recommendations and recent advances in the prevention of first esophageal variceal bleeding.

Beta-blockers in portal hypertension: new developments and controversies

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

Management of varices in patients with cirrhosis

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

[Mexican consensus on portal hypertension]

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

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.

Early primary prophylaxis with beta-blockers does not prevent the growth of small esophageal varices in cirrhosis: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of portal pressure reduction by beta-blockers and the utility of serial hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurements for the management of small (≤5 mm) esophageal varices in patients of cirrhosis are not clear.

AIMS

The study had the following aims: to study (1) the effect of propranolol on the growth of small varices and (2) whether single or serial HVPG measurements result in a better outcome compared to no measurement in patients with small varices.

METHODS

Consecutive cirrhosis patients with small varices, without any history of variceal bleed, were randomized to receive propranolol or placebo and to undergo no HVPG, only baseline HVPG, or serial HVPG measurements.

RESULTS

A total of 150 cirrhotics (cirrhosis predominantly viral or alcohol induced) were included (77 in the beta-blocker and 73 in the placebo group). Baseline characteristics were similar. The actuarial 2-year risk of growth of varices (primary endpoint) was 11 and 16% in the propranolol and placebo group, respectively (P = 0.786). Variceal bleeding and mortality were also comparable in the two groups. Similarly, the outcome was not influenced by HVPG measurements (whether serial, only baseline, or no HVPG). A bilirubin level of ≥1.5 mg/dl was found to be an independent predictor of variceal progression.

CONCLUSIONS

In cirrhotics with small esophageal varices, nonselective beta-blockers are unable to prevent the growth of varices, variceal bleed, or mortality. HVPG monitoring of these patients did not change the outcome; however, the role of HVPG-guided therapy modification needs to be studied.

Update of endoscopy in liver disease: More than just treating varices

The management of complications in liver disease is often complex and challenging. Endoscopy has undergone a period of rapid expansion with numerous novel and specialized endoscopic modalities that are of increasing value in the investigation and management of the patient with liver disease. In this review, relevant literature search and expert opinions have been used to provide a brief overview and update of the current endoscopic management of patients with liver disease and portal hypertension. The main areas covered are safety of endoscopy in patients with liver disease, the use of standard endoscopy for the treatment of varices and the role of new endoscopic modalities such as endoscopic ultrasound, esophageal capsule, argon plasma coagulation, spyglass and endomicroscopy in the investigation and treatment of liver-related gastrointestinal and biliary pathology. It is clear that the role of the endoscopy in liver disease is well beyond that of just treating varices. As the technology in endoscopy expands, so does the role of the endoscopist in liver disease.

Endoscopic management of portal hypertension

Cirrhosis is the leading cause of portal hypertension worldwide, with the development of bleeding gastroesophageal varices being one of the most life-threatening consequences. Endoscopy plays an indispensible role in the diagnosis, staging, and prophylactic or active management of varices. With the expected future refinements in endoscopic technology, capsule endoscopy may one day replace traditional gastroscopy as a diagnostic modality, whereas endoscopic ultrasound may more precisely guide interventional therapy for gastric varices.

Management of varices in cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Variceal bleeding: consensus meeting report from the Brazilian Society of Hepatology

In the last decades, several improvements in the management of variceal bleeding have resulted in a significant decrease in morbidity and mortality of patients with cirrhosis and bleeding varices. Progress in the multidisciplinary approach to these patients has led to a better management of this disease by critical care physicians, hepatologists, gastroenterologists, endoscopists, radiologists and surgeons. In this respect, the Brazilian Society of Hepatology has, recently, sponsored a consensus meeting in order to draw evidence-based recommendations on the management of these difficult-to-treat subjects. An organizing committee comprised of four people was elected by the Governing Board and was responsible to invite 27 researchers from distinct regions of the country to make a systematic review of the subject and to present topics related to variceal bleeding, including prevention, diagnosis, management and treatment, according to evidence-based medicine. After the meeting, all participants met together for discussion of the topics and the elaboration of the aforementioned recommendations. The organizing committee was responsible for writing the final document. The meeting was held at Salvador, May 6th, 2009 and the present manuscript is the summary of the systematic review that was presented during the meeting, organized in topics, followed by the recommendations of the Brazilian Society of Hepatology.

[Prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding]

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

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

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

Small-bowel lesions caused by portal hypertension of schistosomal origin: a capsule endoscopy pilot study

BACKGROUND

Schistosomiasis is a highly prevalent disease. It can evolve to its hepatosplenic form in up to 10% of the cases. The small-bowel lesions developed during the hepatosplenic stage of the disease have not been described in vivo.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe, for the first time, in a pilot study, the endoscopic aspects of the lesions in the small bowel of patients with portal hypertension due to schistosomiasis, using the PillCam SB, and to determine the usefulness of the method for the diagnosis of esophageal varices.

DESIGN

Case series.

SETTING

Tertiary-care medical center.

PATIENTS

Nine nonrandomized patients with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis and esophageal varices without previous GI bleeding were selected based on findings from the PillCam SB. Patients using medications that could alter the coagulation, with history of abdominal surgery, who were undergoing treatment of the portal hypertension other than beta-blocker, and with symptoms suggesting bowel obstruction were excluded. The findings were interpreted by a single endoscopist.

RESULTS

Capsule endoscopy was able to diagnose esophageal varices in all 9 patients. All of the patients presented angioectasias and venectasias in the small bowel. Small-bowel varices were present in 22.2% of the patients; edema and erosions were found in 66.7% and 88.9%, respectively. Lesions of so-called "scarred mucosa" were found in 55.5% of the patients.

LIMITATIONS

Small number of patients; case series.

CONCLUSION

The PillCam SB was effective, giving a significant contribution to the description of the esophageal varices and small-bowel lesions of the patients with portal hypertension caused by Schistosoma mansoni.

Viral cirrhosis: an overview of haemostatic alterations and clinical consequences

Viral hepatitis is a major health problem worldwide, the principal cause of cirrhosis and hepatocarcinoma. Once cirrhosis occurs, the consequences of liver dysfunction and portal hypertension become evident and, sometimes, life threatening for patients. Among the various complications of liver cirrhosis, the alteration of haemostatic balance is often a hard challenge for the clinician, since it is capable to predispose both to bleeding or thrombosis. In this review, we analyze the principal aspects of procoagulant, anticoagulant and fibrinolytic capacity of cirrhotic patients, which appears to be variably altered in all these aspects, not only in the direction of a tendency to bleeding. Laboratory investigations, at present, may provide only a partial representation of this condition, because of the impossibility to obtain a test capable to furnish a global overview of the haemostatic system and to reproduce in vivo conditions. Furthermore, we describe the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying bleeding manifestations and thrombosis development in cirrhotic patients, which should be considered not only as obvious consequences of the advanced liver disease but, rather, as the result of a complex interaction between inherited and acquired factors.

Pathophysiologic basis for the medical management of portal hypertension

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension is a potentially life-threatening complication of cirrhosis, resulting from increased intrahepatic resistance and portal inflow.

OBJECTIVE

Given the complex nature of this disorder, a more complete understanding of the pathophysiology of portal hypertension is necessary to develop new therapies that target specific pathways that regulate portal pressure.

METHODS

This review is based on a literature search of published articles and abstracts on the pathophysiology of portal hypertension, its complications and its treatment.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

A number of therapies have been developed or are under investigation for the treatment of portal hypertension and its complications. These agents may reduce mortality and improve quality of life for patients with advanced liver disease.

Primary prophylaxis of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding: consensus recommendations of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver

The Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) set up a Working Party on Portal Hypertension in 2002, with a mandate to develop consensus guidelines on various clinical aspects of portal hypertension relevant to disease patterns and clinical practice in the Asia-Pacific region. Variceal bleeding is a consequence of portal hypertension, which, in turn, is the major complication of liver cirrhosis. Primary prophylaxis to prevent the first bleed from varices is one of the most important strategies for reducing the mortality in cirrhotic patients. Experts predominantly from the Asia-Pacific region were requested to identify the different aspects of primary prophylaxis and develop the consensus guidelines. The APASL Working Party on Portal Hypertension evaluated the various therapies that have been used for the prevention of first variceal bleeding. A 2-day meeting was held on January 12 and 13, 2007, at New Delhi, India, to discuss and finalize the consensus statements. Only those statements that were unanimously approved by the experts were accepted. These statements were circulated to all the experts and were subsequently presented at the annual conference of the APASL at Kyoto, Japan, in March 2007.

The management of portal hypertension: rational basis, available treatments and future options

Variceal bleeding is the last step in a chain of events initiated by an increase in portal pressure, followed by the development and progressive dilation of varices until these finally rupture and bleed. This sequence of events might be prevented - and reversed - by achieving a sufficient decrease in portal pressure. A different approach is the use of local endoscopic treatments at the varices. This article reviews the rationale for the management of patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, the current recommendations for the prevention and treatment of variceal bleeding, and outlines the unsolved issues and the perspectives for the future opened by new research developments.

Primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding in cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is a common and severe complication of liver cirrhosis. The risk of bleeding increases with the size of varices, red wheal marks and disease severity. Noninvasive tests are not accurate enough for the diagnosis of varices, so all patients with cirrhosis should be screened by endoscopy. Nonselective beta-blockers (propranolol, nadolol) are indicated for primary prophylaxis in patients with medium/large varices, and for those with small varices and red signs or advanced liver failure (Child C). In such patients, beta-blockers have been shown to reduce the risk of bleeding from 25 to 15%. There is no evidence to support using beta-blockers with nitrates or spironolactone. In patients with contraindication or intolerance to beta-blockers, endoscopic band ligations are indicated.

Portal hypertension: pre-primary and primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

In liver cirrhosis, variceal bleeding is the last in a chain of events initiated by the increase in portal pressure (estimated in clinical practice by the hepatic venous pressure gradient). When hepatic venous pressure gradient goes above 10 mmHg the patient is at risk of developing varices, and when hepatic venous pressure gradient reaches 12 mmHg variceal bleeding might develop. Currently, there is not any effective therapy for the prevention of the development of varices. When varices are small, beta-adrenergic blockers might prevent the enlargement of the varices, and may reduce the risk of variceal bleeding. In patients with medium to large varices, beta-blockers are clearly effective in reducing the risk of variceal bleeding. Endoscopic band ligation might be more effective than beta-blockers, but available evidence is still very weak.

Hemodynamic effects of the early and long-term administration of propranolol in rats with intrahepatic portal hypertension

Background and aims The aims of this study were to evaluate a preventive effect on collateral venous circulation of long-term administration of propranolol in intrahepatic portal hypertensive rats. Methods Eighty-six Sprague-Dawley rats were allocated to two models of hepatic fibrosis, bile duct-ligated (BDL) induced and carbon tetrachloride (CCl(4)) induced. Each model was divided into two groups: one receiving placebo and the other propranolol (75 mg kg(-1) d(-1)). Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), portal pressure (PP), cardiac index (CI), vascular systemic resistance, and splenorenal shunt blood flow (SRS-BF) were measured in anesthetized rats. Results In the BDL model, no significant hemodynamic changes were observed in the propranolol group compared with the placebo group. In CCl(4)-induced rats, HR (390 +/- 50 vs. 329 +/- 51 beats/min, P = .001), CI (44 +/- 11 vs. 34 +/- 10 ml/min, P = .004), PP (15.4 +/- 3.0 vs. 13.4 +/- 1.9 mmHg, P = .045), and SRS-BF (1.4 +/- 1.1 vs. 1.0 +/- 1.0 ml/min, P = .047) were significantly lower in the propranolol group. Conclusions This study showed that propranolol has a significant hemodynamic effect only in the CCl(4) model and suggested a model-dependent effect of propranolol.

Preventing first variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is still a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension responsible for an appreciable rate of morbidity and mortality. The most appropriate treatment approach, whether drugs (nonselective beta-blockers) or endoscopic (variceal band ligation) therapy, to prevent the initial bleed, or primary prophylaxis, is an issue of controversy. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials indicates that banding seems to be somehow slightly more effective than beta-blockers at preventing a first bleeding episode, but this does not translate to improved survival. The firmness of this conclusion is, in addition, diminished by the small sample size and short follow-up of most studies. Moreover, adverse events due to banding are more severe than those associated with beta-blockers. Thus, beta-blockers remain as first-line therapy in patients with cirrhosis and large esophageal varices. Prophylactic therapy with beta-blockers can be considered in patients with small varices, especially in those with red signs or Child class C liver disease. The available evidence does not support the idea that organic nitrates improve the efficacy of beta-blockers in primary prophylaxis. The method used to establish the dose of beta-blockers and check its effect on hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) has also been disputed. An attractive strategy is to measure the HVPG response to beta-blockers as a guide to primary prophylaxis, with the aim of switching to another therapy, that is, band ligation, in HVPG nonresponders. However, no study has yet demonstrated that banding as rescue therapy in nonresponders lowers the risk of first bleeding and improves survival.