Medical expenses in treating acute esophageal variceal bleeding: A 15-year nationwide population-based cohort study

Letter: Shorter duration of intravenous terlipressin for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis-A promising find

This article is linked to Vaishnav et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17868 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17982

The effect of prophylactic antibiotics in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Currently, prophylactic antibiotics are recommended only for cirrhotic patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB); however, the benefit for other AUGIB patients remains undetermined. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between patients with AUGIB with and without prophylactic antibiotics to identify the population that requires this therapy.

METHODS

Patients with AUGIB admitted between 1st January 2019 and 31st December 2021 in the Emergency Department of Peking Union Medical College Hospital were enrolled. Patients were divided into the antibiotic and non-antibiotic groups. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and the secondary outcome was the onset of new infection. The risk factors for mortality and infection were analyzed, and stratification analysis of prophylactic antibiotics was performed. Continuous data were analyzed using the t-test or nonparametric rank sum test, and categorical data were analyzed using the Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Indicators with significant differences between the groups were included for logistic regression analysis. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 392 individuals were included, among them, 281 patients received prophylactic antibiotics, and 111 patients did not receive prophylactic antibiotics. The mortality rates were significantly lower in the antibiotic group than in the non-antibiotics group (6.41% vs. 17.12%, P=0.001). The risk factors for infection were varicose veins (P=0.045) and endotracheal intubation (P=0.005) in the prophylactic antibiotic group, and endoscopic treatment (P=0.010) in the non-prophylactic antibiotic group. Stratified analyses showed that patients with age ≥ 65 years, endotracheal intubation, endoscopic treatment, and AUGIB of variceal etiologies benefited from prophylactic antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

AUGIB patients may benefit from prophylactic antibiotics to decrease mortality, especially those aged ≥ 65 years and those with endotracheal intubation, endoscopic treatment, and variceal etiologies.

Use of endoscopic band ligation alone and in combination with nonselective beta blockers for prevention of variceal bleeding in ascites patients on the liver transplant waiting list

Objective: to conduct a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of two methods – endoscopic band ligation (EBL) alone and in combination with nonselective beta blockers (NSBB) – used for prevention of variceal bleeding (VB); to evaluate their impact on patient survival in severe ascites during long-term stay on the liver transplant waiting list (LTWL). Materials and methods. A retrospective comparative study of two groups of patients with decompensated liver disease, ascites and varices included in the LTWL, who received EBL (n = 41, group 1) and EBL + NSBB (n = 45, group 2). Results. The groups being compared did not differ in demographics, clinical parameters, MELD and Child–Turcotte–Pugh scores. There were no significant differences in the incidence of severe ascites, particularly diuretic-resistant ascites. The study groups did not differ in the incidence of mediumand large-sized varices. Incidence of bleeding did not differ in both groups. Overall mortality was significantly higher in the EBL + NSBB group than in the EBL group. Patient survival was lower, while mortality was higher in the EBL + NSBB group. The combined therapy group had a significantly higher number of acute kidney injury (AKI) than the EBL group. Conclusion. The compared methods are equivalently effective in preventing VB in patients with decompensated cirrhosis with a prolonged stay on the waiting list. Survival rate is significantly lower, while mortality is significantly higher in the EBL + NSBB group than in the EBL group.

Balloon Tamponade for the Management of Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding is a potentially life-threatening condition that requires rapid intervention. In critically ill patients who are refractory to other therapies, balloon tamponade devices can be lifesaving.

OBJECTIVE

We provide a review of balloon tamponade devices for gastric and esophageal variceal bleeding for emergency clinicians.

DISCUSSION

Balloon tamponade is intended for hemodynamically unstable patients with massive gastrointestinal bleeding and inability to perform endoscopy, failed endoscopy, delay in endoscopy, or the need to stabilize before transfer. There are 3 main tamponade devices: the Linton-Nachlas tube, the Sengstaken-Blakemore tube, and the Minnesota tube. Each tamponade device has some unique features including the number of balloons and ports. We describe the technique with pearls and pitfalls for placement.

CONCLUSIONS

It is essential for emergency physicians to be familiar with balloon tamponade for acute gastrointestinal bleeding. We review the common balloon tamponade devices, and this article is intended to serve as a resource for those interested in expanding their knowledge of balloon tamponade. © 2022 Elsevier Inc.

Treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS software, using Bayesian methods, and calculated the differences in treatments using 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. We performed also the direct comparisons from RCTs using the same codes and the same technical details.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.

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.

The role of antibiotics in upper gastrointestinal bleeding among cirrhotic patients without major complications after endoscopic hemostasis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Antibiotic prophylaxis should be instituted for cirrhotic patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), but the benefit on compensated patients remains undetermined. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between cirrhotic patients without major complications with UGIB with and without antibiotic prophylaxis.

METHODS

We conducted this population-based cohort study by using Taiwanese Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2000 (LHID2000, between 1997 to 2013), aged 18 years or older with a hospital discharge diagnosis of cirrhosis (n = 64,506), UGIB (n = 7,784), and endoscopic therapy (n = 2,292). After strict exclusions, 1205 patients were enrolled and were divided into antibiotic exposure (n = 558) and non-exposure (n = 647) groups. The outcomes were rebleeding and mortality.

RESULTS

After completing the analysis adjusted by death, the rebleeding rates within 4 weeks were significantly lower in patients with antibiotic prophylaxis (3.05% versus 6.03%, P = 0.0142) and those with endoscopic therapy (0.72% vs 3.09%, P = 0.0033) but not significant after 3 months and onwards. Male patients aged > 55, high CCI score ≧ 4, and UGIB of variceal etiologies were benefited from rebleeding. The use of antibiotics did not significantly impact 6-week mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.07, 95%CI: 0.41~2.75; P = 0.8943). Old age, multiple comorbidities, and UGIB of variceal etiologies were risk factors of all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study suggested that cirrhotic patients without major complications who suffered from UGIB were benefited by the use of antibiotics to prevent rebleeding within 4 weeks after endoscopic treatment of UGIB especially for those with age > 55, high CCI score ≧ 4, and UGIB of variceal etiologies.

Direct Health Care Costs, Health Services Utilization, and Outcomes of Biliary Atresia: A Population-based Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

Biliary atresia (BA) is the most common reason for liver transplant in childhood, and outcomes worsen with older age at hepatoportoenterostomy (HPE). We determined direct health care costs in children with BA, compared to controls in a population-based cohort of children in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

We used health administrative data to identify all children diagnosed with BA between 2002 and 2016 (n = 121) and matched controls (n = 602). We determined annual direct healthcare costs, and rates of health services utilization, liver transplantation, death, portal hypertension, cirrhosis, esophageal varices, and major upper gastrointestinal bleeding requiring hospitalization. Multivariable regression models determined the association between age at HPE, risk of liver transplant, and direct costs.

RESULTS

Incidence of BA was 6.07 (4.99-7.15) per 100,000 live births. The annual median (interquartile range) direct health care costs were higher in BA cases ($4210; interquartile range $1091-$16,765) compared to controls ($283; $112-$634). Compared to age at HPE <45 days, there was no significant association between direct costs and HPE ≥90 days (rate ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-1.97) or 45 to 90 days (rate ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.73-1.50). Age at HPE ≥90 days was significantly associated with risk of undergoing liver transplant compared to age <45 days (hazard ratio 5.27, 95% CI 2.45-11.34). Direct costs were higher in patients with BA who underwent liver transplantation compared to those who did not ($39,476±$84,367 vs $22,579 ± $67,913).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct ealth care costs were high in patients with BA, especially in those who underwent liver transplantation. Age at HPE was associated with risk of liver transplantation, but not direct health care costs, utilization, or other risk outcomes.

Partial spleen embolization reduces the risk of portal hypertension-induced upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients not eligible for TIPS implantation

Introduction

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a severe and life-threatening complication among patients with portal hypertension (PH). Covered transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is the treatment of choice for patients with refractory or recurrent UGIB despite pharmacological and endoscopic therapy. In some patients, TIPS implantation is not possible due to co-morbidity or vascular disorders. Spleen embolization (SE) may be a promising alternative in this setting.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively analyzed 9 patients with PH-induced UGIB who underwent partial SE between 2012 and 2016. All patients met the following criteria: (i) upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage with primary or secondary failure of endoscopic interventions and (ii) TIPS implantation not possible. Each patient was followed for at least 6 months after embolization.

Results

Five patients (56%) suffered from cirrhotic PH, 4 patients (44%) from non-cirrhotic PH. UGIB occured in terms of refractory hemorrhage from gastric varices (3/9; 33%), hemorrhage from esophageal varices (3/9; 33%), and finally, hemorrhage from portal-hypertensive gastropathy (3/9; 33%). None of the patients treated with partial SE experienced re-bleeding episodes or required blood transfusions during a total follow-up time of 159 months, including both patients with cirrhotic- and non-cirrhotic PH.

Discussion

Partial SE, as a minimally invasive intervention with low procedure-associated complications, may be a valuable alternative for patients with recurrent PH-induced UGIB refractory to standard therapy.