Survey on Clinical Practice of Primary Prophylaxis in Portal Hypertension in Children

Cystic fibrosis screening, evaluation, and management of hepatobiliary disease consensus recommendations

Cystic fibrosis (CF) may cause a spectrum of hepatobiliary complications, including portal hypertension, multilobular cirrhosis, and liver failure. Current guidelines on the detection and monitoring of hepatobiliary complications in CF were published in 1999. The CF Foundation assembled a committee to evaluate research advances and formulate revised guidelines for CF-associated liver disease. A committee of hepatologists, gastroenterologists, pulmonologists, pharmacists, nurses, dietitians, individuals with CF, and the parents of a child with CF devised "population, intervention, comparison, and outcome" questions regarding hepatobiliary disease in CF. PubMed literature searches were performed for each population, intervention, comparison, and outcome question. Recommendations were voted on with 80% agreement required to approve a recommendation. Public comment on initial recommendations was solicited prior to the formulation of final recommendations. Thirty-one population, intervention, comparison, and outcome questions were assembled, 6401 manuscripts were title screened for relevance, with 1053 manuscripts undergoing detailed full-text review. Seven recommendations were approved for screening, 13 for monitoring of existing disease, and 14 for treatment of CF-associated hepatobiliary involvement or advanced liver disease. One recommendation on liver biopsy did not meet the 80% threshold. One recommendation on screening ultrasound was revised and re-voted on. Through a multidisciplinary committee and public engagement, we have assembled updated recommendations and guidance on screening, monitoring, and treatment of CF-associated hepatobiliary involvement and advanced liver disease. While research gaps remain, we anticipate that these recommendations will lead to improvements in CF outcomes through earlier detection and increased evidence-based approaches to monitoring and treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Primary Prophylaxis of Bleeding in Children With High-Risk Gastroesophageal Varices

OBJECTIVES

Primary prophylaxis of bleeding is debated in children with gastroesophageal varices; one of the reasons is the limited number of studies concerning its efficacy and safety. We report our experience with endoscopic primary prophylaxis.

METHODS

From 2006 to 2019, 145 children (median age, 3.5 years; cirrhosis, n = 116) with high-risk gastroesophageal varices underwent primary prophylaxis (banding, n = 114; sclerotherapy n = 31, primarily in smaller children).

RESULTS

We observed the eradication of varices in 93% of children after a mean of 6 months, at least one recurrence of varices in 45% after eradication, and gastrointestinal bleeding in 17% of children. Irrespective of the cause of portal hypertension, grade 3 esophageal varices, presence of gastric varices along the cardia and a lower composite score of endoscopic severity were associated with a worse probability of eradication, a longer time to eradication and a lower risk of a first recurrence and of bleeding following the procedure, respectively. Ten-year probabilities of overall survival and of bleeding-free survival were 95% and 75%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding is reasonably effective and safe in children with high-risk gastroesophageal varices. Worse results are observed in children with more advanced endoscopic features. This pleads for endoscopic screening in children with portal hypertension and early detection of varices warranting primary prophylaxis.

Primary endoscopic variceal ligation reduced acute variceal bleeding events but not long-term mortality in pediatric-onset portal hypertension

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) is a medical emergency in patients with portal hypertension (PHT). However, studies on the long-term outcomes of prophylactic endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in pediatric-onset PHT are lacking.

METHODS

Between 1999 and 2020, patients who received EVL in the Electronic Report System of the Pediatric Endoscopy Unit were included in this retrospective study. EVL was classified as primary prophylaxis when it was performed for esophageal varices (EVs) without previous bleeding. If it was implemented in acute EVB, the subsequent EVL was classified as secondary prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients aged 10 months to 33 years with 31 males were included. Thirty-eight patients were classified as primary prophylaxis group, and twenty, secondary prophylaxis group. The primary prophylaxis group experienced fewer 5-year EVB events than the secondary prophylaxis group (cumulative risk: 14.4% versus 32.4%). Still, it didn't significantly affect overall survival and biliary atresia transplant-free survival. Long-term mortality was significantly associated with higher serum direct bilirubin levels (≥0.55 mg/dL) and lower albumin levels (≤2.54 mg/dL) at the first EVL. Aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) with a cut-off value of 1.24 helped to predict EV presence at the initial esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (AUROC = 0.762, sensitivity 75.0%, and specificity 66.7%).

CONCLUSION

Primary prophylactic EVL, despite reducing acute EVB, may not change overall survival and biliary atresia transplant-free survival. APRI > 1.24 may predict EV presence at the first EGD and help to schedule a surveillance EGD. Higher direct bilirubin and lower albumin levels at the first EVL may relate to long-term mortality.

Band ligation versus sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including bleeding (haemorrhage) from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal bleeding commonly occurs in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. Prevention is, therefore, important. Randomised clinical trials have shown that non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal band ligation decrease the incidence of variceal bleeding in adults. In children and adolescents, band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as primary prophylaxis alternatives for oesophageal variceal bleeding. However, it is unknown whether these interventions are of benefit or harm when used for primary prophylaxis in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of band ligation compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and two other databases (April 2020). We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications, and we also handsearched abstract books of the two main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conferences from January 2008 to December 2019. We also searched clinicaltrials.gov, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) for ongoing clinical trials. We imposed no language or document type restrictions on our search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We aimed to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status, to assess the benefits and harms of band ligation versus sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. If the search for randomised clinical trials retrieved quasi-randomised and other observational studies, then we read them through to extract information on harm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology to perform this systematic review. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were oesophageal variceal bleeding and adverse events not considered serious. We used the intention-to-treat principle. We analysed data using Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

One conference abstract, describing a feasibility multi-centre randomised clinical trial, fulfilled our review inclusion criteria. We judged the trial at overall high risk of bias. This trial was conducted in three hospital centres in the United Kingdom. The aim of the trial was to determine the feasibility and safety of further larger randomised clinical trials of prophylactic band ligation versus no active treatment in children with portal hypertension and large oesophageal varices. Twelve children received prophylactic band ligation and 10 children received no active treatment. There was no information on the age of the children included, or about the diagnosis of any child included. All children were followed up for at least six months. Mortality was 8% (1/12) in the band ligation group versus 0% (0/10) in the no active intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 2.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 56.25; very low certainty of evidence). The abstract did not report when the death occurred, but we assume it happened between the six-month follow-up and one year. No child (0%) in the band ligation group developed adverse events (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.25; very low certainty of evidence) but one child out of 10 (10%) in the no active intervention group developed idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura. One child out of 12 (8%) in the band ligation group underwent liver transplantation versus none in the no active intervention group (0%) (RR 2.54, 95% CI 0.11 to 56.25; very low certainty of evidence). The trial reported no other serious adverse events or liver-related morbidity. Quality of life was not reported. Oesophageal variceal bleeding occurred in 8% (1/12) of the children in the band ligation group versus 30% (3/10) of the children in the no active intervention group (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.27; very low certainty of evidence). No adverse events considered non-serious were reported. Two children were lost to follow-up by one-year. Ten children in total completed the trial at two-year follow-up. There was no information on funding.  We found two observational studies on endoscopic variceal ligation when searching for randomised trials. One found no harm, and the other reported E nterobacter cloacae septicaemia in one child and mild, transient, upper oesophageal sphincter stenosis in another. We did not assess these studies for risk of bias. We did not find any ongoing randomised clinical trials of interest to our review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence, obtained from only one feasibility randomised clinical trial at high risk of bias, is very scanty. It is very uncertain about whether prophylactic band ligation versus sham or no (active) intervention may affect mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, or oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with portal hypertension and large oesophageal varices. We have no data on quality of life. No adverse events considered non-serious were reported. The results presented in the trial need to be interpreted with caution. In addition, the highly limited data cover only part of our research question; namely, children with portal hypertension and large oesophageal varices. Data on children with portal vein thrombosis are lacking. Larger randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits and harms of band ligation compared with sham treatment for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are needed. The trials should include important clinical outcomes such as death, quality of life, failure to control bleeding, and adverse events.

Beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including haemorrhage from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal haemorrhage commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. Therefore, prevention is important. Band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as alternatives for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children. However, primary prophylaxis is not the current standard of care in paediatric patients because it is unknown whether those treatments are of benefit or harm when used for primary prophylaxis in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded (April 2020). We screened the reference lists of the retrieved publications and manually searched the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conference (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from 2008 to December 2019. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) for ongoing clinical trials. We imposed no language or document type restrictions on our search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status to assess benefits and harms. We included observational studies, retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials, for a narrative report of harm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials by standard Cochrane methodologies. We planned to asses risk of bias and use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were oesophageal variceal bleeding and adverse events not considered serious. We planned to use intention-to-treat principle. We planned to analyse data with RevMan Analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised clinical trials that assessed beta-blockers compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. We found four observational studies that reported on harms. As a systematic search for observational studies was not planned, we only listed the reported harms in a table.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. Therefore, trials with adequate power and proper design, assessing the benefits and harms of beta-blockers versus placebo on patient-relevant clinical outcomes, such as mortality, quality of life, failure to control variceal bleeding, and adverse events are needed. Unless such trials are conducted and the results become published, we cannot make any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of the two interventions.

Poor performance of noninvasive predictors of esophageal varices during primary prophylaxis surveillance in biliary atresia

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to analyze performance of noninvasive markers for significant esophageal varices in relation to outcomes of endoscopic surveillance and primary prophylaxis in biliary atresia (BA).

METHODS

This was a prospective follow-up study of a national cohort of BA patients born between 1989 and 2017, including 72 consecutive patients who underwent variceal surveillance endoscopies. The risk for developing significant varices (grade ≥ 2) and variceal bleeding was compared between successful (postoperative total bilirubin ≤34 μmol/L) and failed portoenterostomy (PE) patients. AUROC analyses and Wilcoxon signed ranks test were used to assess accuracy of noninvasive measures to predict the presence of significant varices after successful PE.

RESULTS

In total, 72 patients underwent 471 endoscopies during 427 follow-up years. Among 45 successful PE patients (63%), varices appeared later [at median age 1.6 (0.7-14) vs. 0.8 (0.4-1.9) years] and bled less often [7% vs. 41%, p < 0.001 for both] than after failed PE. Liver biochemistry, stiffness, and predictive scores showed poor accuracy for the presence of significant varices. After failed PE, lowered plasma albumin concentration predicted varices with an AUROC of 0.69 (95% CI 0.52-0.85, p = 0.030). After successful PE the varices prediction rule with AUROC 0.72 (95% CI 0.64-0.79) was the most accurate predictor. Individual predictors showed no meaningful changes between the two consecutive endoscopies leading to discovery of varices.

CONCLUSION

Accurate targeting of endoscopies based on noninvasive predictors remains difficult during primary variceal prophylaxis protocol in BA. The differing prognoses after successful and failed PE should be considered in variceal surveillance and future studies.

TYPE OF STUDY

Diagnostic/prognosis study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including haemorrhage from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal haemorrhage commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Prevention is therefore important. In adults, numerous randomised clinical trials have demonstrated benefits of non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation as primary prevention in decreasing the risk of variceal haemorrhage. In children, band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as alternatives for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding. However, primary prophylaxis is not the current standard of care in children because it is unknown whether those treatments are of benefit or cause harm when used for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded (27 April 2020). We scrutinised the reference lists of retrieved publications, and performed a manual search from the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conferences (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from 2008 to 2019. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA, EMA, and WHO for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. If the search for randomised clinical trials retrieved quasi-randomised and observational studies, then we read them through to extract information on harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials by standard Cochrane methodologies. We planned to assess risk of bias and use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence per outcome. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were oesophageal variceal bleeding and adverse events not considered serious. We planned to analyse data with intention-to-treat. We planned to use Review Manager 5 to analyse the data.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised clinical trials assessing band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. Therefore, trials with adequate power and proper design, assessing the benefits and harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy on patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality, quality of life, failure to control variceal bleeding, and adverse events are needed. Unless such trials are conducted and the results become published, we cannot make any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of these two interventions.

Endoscopic variceal ligation as primary prophylaxis for upper GI bleeding in children

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Variceal hemorrhage can be a life-threatening adverse event of chronic liver disease. In contrast to the well-described guidelines for the management of portal hypertension (PH) in adults, there is limited evidence about the optimal prophylactic management of variceal bleeding in children. This study was carried out to assess the efficacy of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) as primary prophylaxis to prevent upper GI bleeding in children with PH.

METHODS

From January 2014 to April 2018, all pediatric patients with PH disease and medium to large esophageal varices or reddish spots, regardless of the grade of the varix, were prospectively included in the protocol of primary prophylaxis with EVL. A second retrospective group of patients was made after reviewing medical records of 32 pediatric patients with PH that presented esophageal varices in the upper endoscopy and had received propranolol as primary prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients (75%) reached varices eradication in the EVL group, with a median of 2 procedures (range, 1-4) before eradication and a median time to eradication of 3.40 months (range, 1.10-13.33). No EVL-related adverse events were observed. Statistically significant differences were observed in the bleeding rate at 3 years between propranolol and EVL groups (6/32 [21.9%] vs 1/32 [3.2%], P < .02). The hazard ratio for bleeding for patients treated with propranolol compared with those treated with EVL was 2.6 (95% confidence interval, 1.53-3.67).

CONCLUSIONS

EVL is a safe and effective treatment to prevent upper GI bleeding in pediatric patients with PH. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03943784.).

Long-term Outcomes and Health Perceptions in Pediatric-onset Portal Hypertension Complicated by Varices

OBJECTIVES

Outcomes of pediatric-onset portal hypertension are poorly defined. We aimed to assess population-based long-term outcomes of pediatric-onset portal hypertension complicated by varices.

METHODS

All children with esophageal varices (n = 126) were identified from 14,144 single nationwide referral center endoscopy reports during 1987 to 2013, and followed up through national health care and death registers. A questionnaire was sent to survivors (n = 94) of whom 65 (69%) responded.

RESULTS

Nineteen underlying disorders included biliary atresia (35%), extrahepatic portal vein obstruction (35%), autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease (7%), and other disorders (23%). During median follow-up of 15.2 (range 0.5-43.1) years patients underwent median 9 (1-74) upper gastrointestinal endoscopies. Esophageal varices were first observed at a median age of 4.0 (0.3-18.2) years, 112 (89%) patients underwent median 6 (1-56) sclerotherapy/banding sessions, and 61 (48%) experienced median 2 (range 1-20) variceal bleeding episodes. Forty-eight surgical shunt procedures were performed to 41 (36%) patients and 38% underwent liver transplantation. Portal hypertensive biliopathy was diagnosed in 4 patients. Hepatopulmonary syndrome necessitated liver transplantation in 2 patients, hepatic encephalopathy in 2, and hepatorenal syndrome in 1. No patient died of variceal bleeding. Patient-reported perception of health on a scale of 1 to 10 was 9 (range 4-10), and 86% reported no current symptoms attributable to esophageal varices.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric-onset portal hypertension is a heterogeneous disease with significant long-term morbidity, requiring multimodal approach with considerable resources and continuation of follow-up in adulthood. Although mortality to variceal bleeding was avoided, bleeding episodes recurred also in adulthood, while patient-reported health of long-term survivors was encouraging.

Sclerotherapy versus sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including bleeding (haemorrhage) from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal bleeding commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Therefore, prevention is important. Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in adults is the established standard of care because of the results of numerous randomised clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of non-selective beta-blockers or endoscopic variceal ligation in decreasing the incidence of variceal bleeding. In children, band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as alternatives for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding. However, it is unknown whether those treatments are of benefit or harm when used for primary prophylaxis in children.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Elsevier, and two other registers in February 2019. We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications, and performed a manual search of the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conference (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstracts from January 2008 to December 2018. We searched four registries for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status assessing sclerotherapy versus sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology to perform this systematic review. We used the intention-to-treat principle to analyse outcome data, and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence per outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We found only one randomised clinical trial that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The trial was at high risk of bias. The trial included 108 Brazilian children with median age of 4.3 years (range 11 months to 13 years). Fifty-six children were randomised to prophylactic sclerotherapy (ethanolamine oleate 2%) and 52 children to no intervention (control). Children were followed up for a median of 4.5 years. Eight children (six from the sclerotherapy group versus two from the control group) dropped out before the end of the trial. The follow-up was from 18 months to eight years. Mortality was 16% (9/56 children) in the sclerotherapy group versus 15% (8/52 children) in the control group (risk ration (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 2.50; very low-certainty evidence). Upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 21% (12/56) of the children in the sclerotherapy group versus 46% (24/52) in the control group (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.83; very low-certainty evidence). There were more children with congestive hypertensive gastropathy in the sclerotherapy group than in the control group (14% (8/56) versus 6% (3/52); RR 2.48, 95% CI 0.69 to 8.84; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of gastric varices was similar between the sclerotherapy group and the control group (11% (6/56) versus 10% (5/52); RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.43; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of bleeding from gastric varices was higher in the sclerotherapy group than in the control group (4% (3/56) versus 0% (0/52); RR 6.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 123.06; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not assess health-related quality of life. Oesophageal variceal bleeding occurred in 5% (3/56) of the children in the sclerotherapy group versus 40% (21/52) of the children in the control group (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.42; very low-certainty evidence). The most prevalent complications (defined as non-serious) were pain and fever after the procedure, which promptly resolved with analgesics. However, numerical data on the frequency of these adverse events and their occurrences in the two groups were lacking. No funding information was provided. We found no ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence, obtained from one randomised clinical trial at high risk of bias, is very uncertain on whether sclerotherapy has an influence on mortality and if it may decrease first upper gastrointestinal or oesophageal variceal bleeding in children. The evidence is very uncertain on whether sclerotherapy has an influence on congestive hypertensive gastropathy, incidence on gastric varices, and incidence of bleeding from gastric varices. Health-related quality of life was not measured. There were no serious events caused by sclerotherapy, and analysis of non-serious adverse events could not be performed due to lack of numerical data. The GRADE assessment of each outcome showed a very low-certainty evidence. The results of the trial need to be interpreted with caution. Larger randomised clinical trials, following the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements, assessing the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are needed. The trials should include important clinical outcomes such as death, failure to control bleeding, and adverse events.

Sclerotherapy versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including bleeding (haemorrhage) from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal bleeding commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Prevention is therefore important. Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in adults is the established standard of care because of the results of numerous randomised clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of non-selective beta-blockers or endoscopic variceal ligation in decreasing the incidence of variceal bleeding. However, sclerotherapy is the only endoscopic prophylactic option currently available in infants weighing less than 10 kg of bodyweight due to the size of the endoscopic ligator.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy versus any type of beta-blocker for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Elsevier, LILACS (Bireme), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science) in February 2019. We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications and performed a manual search from the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conferences (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from January 2008 to December 2018. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA, EMA, and WHO, for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status, assessing sclerotherapy versus any type of beta-blocker for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. We planned to include quasi-randomised and other observational studies retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials for report of harm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We planned to collect and summarise data from randomised clinical trials as described in our protocol, using standard Cochrane methodologies.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised clinical trials assessing sclerotherapy versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of sclerotherapy versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. Therefore, trials with adequate power and proper design, assessing the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy versus beta-blockers on patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality, failure to control bleeding, and adverse events are needed. Unless such trials are conducted and the results become published, we cannot make any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of the two interventions.

Band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including haemorrhage from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal haemorrhage commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Prevention is therefore important. Following numerous randomised clinical trials demonstrating efficacy of non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation in decreasing the incidence of variceal haemorrhage, primary prophylaxis of variceal haemorrhage in adults has become the established standard of care. Hence, band ligation and beta-blockers have been proposed to be used as primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of band ligation compared with any type of beta-blocker for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (February 2019), CENTRAL (December 2018), PubMed (December 2018), Embase Ovid (December 2018), LILACS (Bireme; January 2019), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science; December 2018). We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications and performed a manual search from the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conferences (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from 2009 to 2018. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. We planned to also include quasi-randomised and other observational studies retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials for report of harm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials using standard Cochrane methodologies.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised clinical trials assessing band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. There is a need for well-designed, adequately powered randomised clinical trials to assess the benefits and harms of band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. Those randomised clinical trials should include patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality, failure to control bleeding, and adverse events.

Hepatic Manifestations of Cystic Fibrosis

Cystic fibrosis liver disease (CFLD) remains the third leading cause of death in patients with cystic fibrosis. Although most patients with CFLD present in childhood, recent studies suggest a second wave of liver disease in adulthood. There are no clear guidelines for diagnosing CFLD. Treatment options for CFLD remain limited, and while UDCA is widely used, its long-term benefit is unclear. Those who develop hepatic decompensation or uncontrolled variceal bleeding may benefit from liver transplant, either alone, or in combination with lung transplant.

Cirrhosis and Portal Hypertension in the Pediatric Population

Cirrhosis is a complex process in which the architecture of the liver is replaced by structurally abnormal nodules due to cirrhosis. Cirrhosis frequently leads to the development of portal hypertension. In children, portal hypertension may be caused by a wide range of etiologies, including extrahepatic portal vein obstruction, biliary atresia, alpha 1 antitrypsin deficiency, and autoimmune hepatitis. Gastroesophageal varices and ascites are two of the complications of portal hypertension likely to cause morbidity and mortality. This review also discusses extrahepatic manifestations of portal hypertension and treatment options.

Liver disease in patients with cystic fibrosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the current understanding of the pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of cystic fibrosis-liver disease (CFLD).

RECENT FINDINGS

CFLD has a variety of manifestations. Previously, it was thought that patients progressed from mild cholestatic disease to cirrhosis to decompensated cirrhosis with portal hypertension. Newer evidence suggests that some patients may develop cirrhosis while others develop noncirrhotic portal hypertension. Advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of disease necessitate modifications to the current diagnostic criteria. Both fibroscan and noninvasive biomarkers can be used to identify patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Ursodeoxycholic acid remains the mainstay of therapy despite a paucity of rigorous studies supporting its use. Novel therapeutic agents such as CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators and potentiators are encouraging but need to be evaluated specifically in CFLD.

SUMMARY

A better understanding of the pathophysiology of disease is critical to developing more disease-specific diagnostics and therapeutics.