Outcomes of early versus delayed endoscopy in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Emergency medicine updates: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a condition commonly seen in the emergency department (ED). Therefore, it is important for emergency clinicians to be aware of the current evidence regarding the diagnosis and management of this disease.

OBJECTIVE

This paper evaluates key evidence-based updates concerning UGIB for the emergency clinician.

DISCUSSION

UGIB most frequently presents with hematemesis. There are numerous causes, with the most common peptic ulcer disease, though variceal bleeding in particular can be severe. Nasogastric tube lavage for diagnosis is not recommended based on the current evidence. A hemoglobin transfusion threshold of 7 g/dL is recommended (8 g/dL in those with myocardial ischemia), but patients with severe bleeding and hemodynamic instability require emergent transfusion regardless of their level. Medications that may be used in UGIB include proton pump inhibitors, prokinetic agents, and vasoactive medications. Antibiotics are recommended for those with cirrhosis and suspected variceal bleeding. Endoscopy is the diagnostic and therapeutic modality of choice and should be performed within 24 h of presentation in non-variceal bleeding after resuscitation, though patients with variceal bleeding may require endoscopy within 12 h. Transcatheter arterial embolization or surgical intervention may be necessary. Intubation should be avoided if possible. If intubation is necessary, several considerations are required, including resuscitation prior to induction, utilizing preoxygenation and appropriate suction, and administering a prokinetic agent. There are a variety of tools available for risk stratification, including the Glasgow Blatchford Score.

CONCLUSIONS

An understanding of literature updates can improve the ED care of patients with UGIB.

Review article: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding - review of current evidence and implications for management

BACKGROUND

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common emergency requiring hospital-based care. Advances in care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases have led to improvements in clinical outcomes.

AIMS

To provide a detailed, evidence-based update on major aspects of care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases.

METHODS

We performed a structured bibliographic database search for each topic. If a recent high-quality meta-analysis was not available, we performed a meta-analysis with random effects methods and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Pre-endoscopic management of UGIB includes risk stratification, a restrictive red blood cell transfusion policy unless the patient has cardiovascular disease, and pharmacologic therapy with erythromycin and a proton pump inhibitor. Patients with cirrhosis should be treated with prophylactic antibiotics and vasoactive medications. Tranexamic acid should not be used. Endoscopic management of UGIB depends on the aetiology. For peptic ulcer disease (PUD) with high-risk stigmata, endoscopic therapy, including over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) and TC-325 powder spray, should be performed. For variceal bleeding, treatment should be customised by severity and anatomic location. Post-endoscopic management includes early enteral feeding for all UGIB patients. For high-risk PUD, PPI should be continued for 72 h, and rebleeding should initially be evaluated with a repeat endoscopy. For variceal bleeding, high-risk patients or those with further bleeding, a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt can be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of acute UGIB should include treatment plans for pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases of care, and customise treatment decisions based on aetiology and severity of bleeding.

Assessment, Resuscitation and Medical Management of Variceal and Nonvariceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) continues to be an important cause for emergency room visits and carries significant morbidity and mortality. Early resuscitative measures form the basis of the management of patients presenting with UGIB and can improve the outcomes of such patients including lowering mortality. In this review, using an evidence-based approach, we discuss the initial assessment and resuscitation of patients presenting with UGIB including identifying clues from history and physical examination to confirm UGIB, preendoscopic risk assessment tools, the role of early fluid resuscitation, utilization of blood products, use of pharmacologic interventions, and the optimal timing of endoscopy.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Use of Vasoactive Drugs and Intravenous Albumin in Cirrhosis: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

Cirrhosis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States and worldwide. It consists of compensated, decompensated, and further decompensated stages; median survival is more than 15 years, 2 years, and 9 months for each stage, respectively. With each stage, there is progressive worsening of portal hypertension and the vasodilatory-hyperdynamic circulatory state, resulting in a progressive decrease in effective arterial blood volume and renal perfusion. Vasoconstrictors reduce portal pressure via splanchnic vasoconstriction and are used in the management of variceal hemorrhage. Intravenous (IV) albumin increases effective arterial blood volume and is used in the prevention of acute kidney injury (AKI) and death after large-volume paracentesis and in patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP). The combination of vasoconstrictors and albumin is used in the reversal of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS-AKI), the most lethal complication of cirrhosis. Because a potent vasoconstrictor, terlipressin, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and because recent trials have explored use of IV albumin in other settings, it was considered that a best practice update would be relevant regarding the use of vasoactive drugs and IV albumin in the following 3 specific scenarios: variceal hemorrhage, ascites and SBP, and HRS.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership. It underwent internal peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Some of the statements are unchanged from published guidelines because of lack of new evidence in the literature. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality and evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Vasoactive drugs should be initiated as soon as the diagnosis of variceal hemorrhage is suspected or confirmed, preferably before diagnostic and/or therapeutic endoscopy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: After initial endoscopic hemostasis, vasoactive drugs should be continued for 2-5 days to prevent early rebleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Octreotide is the vasoactive drug of choice in the management of variceal hemorrhage based on its safety profile. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: IV albumin should be administered at the time of large-volume (>5 L) paracentesis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: IV albumin may be considered in patients with SBP. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Albumin should not be used in patients (hospitalized or not) with cirrhosis and uncomplicated ascites. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Vasoconstrictors should not be used in the management of uncomplicated ascites, after large-volume paracentesis or in patients with SBP. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: IV albumin is the volume expander of choice in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and ascites presenting with AKI. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Vasoactive drugs (eg, terlipressin, norepinephrine, and combination of octreotide and midodrine) should be used in the treatment of HRS-AKI, but not in other forms of AKI in cirrhosis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Terlipressin is the vasoactive drug of choice in the treatment of HRS-AKI and use of concurrent albumin can be considered when accounting for patient's volume status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Terlipressin treatment does not require intensive care unit monitoring and can be administered intravenously through a peripheral line. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Terlipressin use is contraindicated in patients with hypoxemia and in patients with ongoing coronary, peripheral, or mesenteric ischemia, and should be used with caution in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure grade 3. The benefits may not outweigh the risks in patients with serum creatinine >5 mg/dL and in patients listed for transplantation with a Model for End-stage Liver Disease ≥35.

Endoscopic procedures in hepatology: Current trends and new developments

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has long been a reliable backbone in the diagnosis and management of hepatobilary disorders and their complications. However, with evolving non-invasive testing, personalised medicine has reframed the utility and necessity of endoscopic screening. Conversely, the growing interest and use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and advanced endoscopy within gastrointestinal units has also opened novel diagnostic and therapeutic avenues for patients with various hepatobiliary diseases. The integration of "advanced endoscopy" within the practice of hepatology is nowadays referred to as "endo-hepatology". In essence, endo-hepatology consists of two pillars: one focusing primarily on disorders of the liver parenchyma, vascular disorders, and portal hypertension, which is mainly captured via EUS, while the other targets the hepatobiliary tract via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and advanced imaging. Applications under the umbrella of endo-hepatology include, amongst others, EUS-guided liver biopsy, EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement, coil and glue embolisation of gastric varices as well as cholangioscopy. As such endo-hepatology could become an attractive concept wherein advanced endoscopy might reinforce the medical management of patients with hepatobiliary disorders and their complications after initial basic work-up. In this review, we discuss current trends and future developments within endo-hepatology and the remaining hurdles to overcome.

General anesthesia in patients with hepatic encephalopathy and acute variceal bleeding undergoing endoscopic treatment: A retrospective study

The management of cirrhotic patient with encephalopathy and acute variceal bleeding (AVB) remains a clinical challenge with a high mortality. Early endoscopic therapies are frequently applied in patients with AVB. However, the application of general anesthesia in endoscopic surgery for patients with hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is pretty challenging. The present study aimed to evaluate the possible effect of general anesthesia with tracheal intubation on patient complicated with encephalopathy and AVB during endoscopic procedure. Thirty-six cirrhotic patients with encephalopathy and AVB were retrospectively studied, 14 patients underwent endoscopic treatment under general anesthesia with tracheal intubation, and 22 patients received pharmacological treatment, or and endoscopic therapy without general anesthesia served as the control group. Routine clinical and laboratory data were collected. The total mortality rate was 13.9% (5/36), 2 (14.3%) in the anesthesia group, 3 (13.6%) in the control group. The child-Pugh class of death cases were all grade C, 3 (60%) of them were in the stage IV of HE. The stage of HE was all improved in the 2 groups, 12 (85.8 %) patients were totally recovered from consciousness disturbance in the anesthesia group and 16 (72.7 %) in the control group respectively, the difference between the 2 groups was not significant (P>0.05). Except the death cases, there were still 3 patients in the control group had impaired consciousness at discharge. Child-Pugh score, Child-Pugh class and the stage of HE in the anesthesia group were significantly improved at discharge compared with those before operation. General anesthesia does not aggravate the severity of encephalopathy, and endoscopic treatment under general anesthesia with tracheal intubation is effective for HE patients complicated with AVB.

Timing of endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding: a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of endoscopy in liver cirrhosis with acute variceal bleeding (AVB) remains controversial in current guidelines and studies.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with liver cirrhosis and AVB were screened. The timing of endoscopy was calculated from the last presentation of AVB or the admission to endoscopy. Early endoscopy was defined as the interval < 12 h, < 24 h, or < 48 h. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Five-day failure to control bleeding and in-hospital mortality were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 534 patients were included. When the timing of endoscopy was calculated from the last presentation of AVB, PSM analysis demonstrated that the rate of 5-day failure to control bleeding was significantly higher in early endoscopy group defined as < 48 h (9.7% versus 2.4%, P = 0.009), but not < 12 h (8.7% versus 6.5%, P = 1.000) or < 24 h (13.4% versus 6.2%, P = 0.091), and that the in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between early and delayed endoscopy groups (< 12 h: 6.5% versus 4.3%, P = 1.000; <24 h: 4.1% versus 3.1%, P = 1.000; <48 h: 3.0% versus 2.4%, P = 1.000). When the timing of endoscopy was calculated from the admission, PSM analyses did not demonstrate any significant difference in the rate of 5-day failure to control bleeding (< 12 h: 4.8% versus 12.7%, P = 0.205; <24 h: 5.2% versus 7.7%, P = 0.355; <48 h: 4.5% versus 6.0%, P = 0.501) or in-hospital mortality (< 12 h: 4.8% versus 4.8%, P = 1.000; <24 h: 3.9% versus 2.6%, P = 0.750; <48 h: 2.0% versus 2.5%, P = 1.000) between early and delayed endoscopy groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study could not support any significant association of timing of endoscopy with cirrhotic patients with AVB.

Timing of endoscopy for acute variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis (CHESS1905): A nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy plays an important role in the management of acute variceal bleeding (AVB) in patients with cirrhosis. This study aimed at determining the optimal endoscopy timing for cirrhotic AVB.

METHODS

Patients with cirrhosis with AVB across 34 university hospitals in 30 cities from February 2013 to May 2020 who underwent endoscopy within 24 hours were included in this study. Patients were divided into an urgent endoscopy group (endoscopy <6 h after admission) and an early endoscopy group (endoscopy 6-24 h after admission). Multivariable analysis was performed to identify risk factors for treatment failure. Primary outcome was the incidence of 5-day treatment failure. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, need for intensive care unit, and length of hospital stay. A propensity score matching analysis was performed. In addition, we performed an analysis, in which we compared the 5-day treatment failure incidence and the in-hospital mortality among patients with endoscopy performed at <12 hours and 12-24 hours.

RESULTS

A total of 3319 patients were enrolled: 2383 in the urgent endoscopy group and 936 in the early endoscopy group. After propensity score matching, on multivariable analysis, Child-Pugh class was identified as an independent risk factor for 5-day treatment failure (HR, 1.61; 95% CI: 1.09-2.37). The incidence of 5-day treatment failure was 3.0% in the urgent endoscopy group and 2.9% in the early group ( p = 0.90). The in-hospital mortality was 1.9% in the urgent endoscopy group and 1.2% in the early endoscopy group ( p = 0.26). The incidence of need for intensive care unit was 18.2% in the urgent endoscopy group and 21.4% in the early endoscopy group ( p = 0.11). The mean length of hospital stay was 17.9 days in the urgent endoscopy group and 12.9 days in the early endoscopy group ( p < 0.05). The incidence of 5-day treatment failure in the <12-hour group was 2.3% and 2.2% in the 12-24 hours group ( p = 0.85). The in-hospital mortality was 2.2% in the <12-hour group and 0.5% in the 12-24 hours group ( p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that performance of endoscopy within 6-12 or within 24 hours of presentation among patients with cirrhosis with AVB led to similar treatment failure outcomes.

Diagnosis and Management of Esophagogastric Varices

Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is a potentially fatal complication of clinically significant portal hypertension and is one of the most common causes of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Thus, esophagogastric varices represent a major economic and population health issue. Patients with advanced chronic liver disease typically undergo an upper endoscopy to screen for esophagogastric varices. However, upper endoscopy is not recommended for patients with liver stiffness < 20 KPa and platelet count > 150 × 10⁹/L as there is a low probability of high-risk varices. Patients with high-risk varices should receive primary prophylaxis with either nonselective beta-blockers or endoscopic band ligation. In cases of AVB, patients should receive upper endoscopy within 12 h after resuscitation and hemodynamic stability, whereas endoscopy should be performed as soon as possible if patients are unstable. In cases of suspected variceal bleeding, starting vasoactive therapy as soon as possible in combination with endoscopic treatment is recommended. On the other hand, in cases of uncontrolled bleeding, balloon tamponade or self-expandable metal stents can be used as a bridge to more definitive therapy such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. This article aims to offer a comprehensive review of recommendations from international guidelines as well as recent updates on the management of esophagogastric varices.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD; due to viruses, alcohol, and/or nonobese [BMI < 30 kg/m²] nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) and clinically significant portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] > 10 mmHg and/or liver stiffness by transient elastography > 25 kPa) should receive, if no contraindications, nonselective beta blocker (NSBB) therapy (preferably carvedilol) to prevent the development of variceal bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in those patients unable to receive NSBB therapy with a screening upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy that demonstrates high risk esophageal varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the endoscopic prophylactic treatment of choice. EBL should be repeated every 2-4 weeks until variceal eradication is achieved. Thereafter, surveillance EGD should be performed every 3-6 months in the first year following eradication.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage (UGIH) and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 70 g/L prompting RBC transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin of 70-90 g/L is desired.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends that patients with ACLD presenting with suspected acute variceal bleeding be risk stratified according to the Child-Pugh score and MELD score, and by documentation of active/inactive bleeding at the time of upper GI endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5 : ESGE recommends the vasoactive agents terlipressin, octreotide, or somatostatin be initiated at the time of presentation in patients with suspected acute variceal bleeding and be continued for a duration of up to 5 days.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends antibiotic prophylaxis using ceftriaxone 1 g/day for up to 7 days for all patients with ACLD presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage, or in accordance with local antibiotic resistance and patient allergies.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends, in the absence of contraindications, intravenous erythromycin 250 mg be given 30-120 minutes prior to upper GI endoscopy in patients with suspected acute variceal hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends that, in patients with suspected variceal hemorrhage, endoscopic evaluation should take place within 12 hours from the time of patient presentation provided the patient has been hemodynamically resuscitated.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 : ESGE recommends EBL for the treatment of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH).Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 : ESGE recommends that, in patients at high risk for recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding following successful endoscopic hemostasis (Child-Pugh C  ≤ 13 or Child-Pugh B > 7 with active EVH at the time of endoscopy despite vasoactive agents, or HVPG > 20 mmHg), pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) within 72 hours (preferably within 24 hours) must be considered.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 11 : ESGE recommends that, for persistent esophageal variceal bleeding despite vasoactive pharmacological and endoscopic hemostasis therapy, urgent rescue TIPS should be considered (where available).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 12 : ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for acute gastric (cardiofundal) variceal (GOV2, IGV1) hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 13: ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or EBL in patients with GOV1-specific bleeding.Strong recommendations, moderate quality evidence. 14: ESGE suggests urgent rescue TIPS or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for gastric variceal bleeding when there is a failure of endoscopic hemostasis or early recurrent bleeding.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 15: ESGE recommends that patients who have undergone EBL for acute EVH should be scheduled for follow-up EBLs at 1- to 4-weekly intervals to eradicate esophageal varices (secondary prophylaxis).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 16: ESGE recommends the use of NSBBs (propranolol or carvedilol) in combination with endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis in EVH in patients with ACLD.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

Timing of endoscopic intervention in patients with cirrhosis with acute variceal haemorrhage (TEACH trial): protocol for a randomised clinical trial (RCT)

INTRODUCTION

Acute variceal haemorrhage (AVH) in patients with cirrhosis remains a topic of great interest. Although several guidelines recommend endoscopy within 24 hours after AVH, there is no consensus on the most appropriate time to perform this intervention. The purpose of this study is to identify whether urgent endoscopy (within 6 hours after gastroenterological consultation) is superior to non-urgent endoscopy (between 6 hours and 24 hours after gastroenterological consultation) in reducing the rebleeding rate of these patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a single-centred, prospective, randomised clinical trial. Between March 2021 and December 2023, an estimated 400 patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive endoscopic intervention either within 6 hours or between 6 and 24 hours after gastroenterological consultation. Randomisation will be conducted by permuted block randomisation, with stratification by age, systolic blood pressure and pulse rate. The primary efficacy endpoint is rebleeding within 42 days after control of AVH. The secondary efficacy endpoints mainly include all-cause mortality within 42 days after randomisation, persistent bleeding, length of hospitalisation, etc. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Committees of Jinling Hospital (authorised ethics no. DZQH-KYLL-21-01). This trial will provide valuable insights into the timing of endoscopic intervention for AVH in patients with cirrhosis. Furthermore, the trial results and conclusions could provide high-quality evidence to guide clinical research and treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04786743.