Comparative study between nadolol and 5-isosorbide mononitrate vs. endoscopic band ligation plus sclerotherapy in the prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients: a randomized controlled trial

Efficacy and Safety of Treatments for Patients With Portal Hypertension and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims: Viral hepatitis are one of the main causes of liver cirrhosis. The treatment of portal hypertension caused by liver cirrhosis is difficult and diverse, and the therapeutic effect is unknown. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of treatments for patients with portal hypertension and cirrhosis, including a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), endoscopic therapy, surgical therapy and medications. Methods: Eligible articles were searched for in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases from their inception until June 2020. Using the "gemtc-0.8.4" package in R v.3.6.3 software and the Just Another Gibbs Sampler v.4.2.0 program, network meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model within a Bayesian framework. The odds ratios for all-cause rebleeding, bleeding-related mortality, overall survival (OS), treatment failure and hepatic encephalopathy were determined within the Bayesian framework. Results: Forty randomized controlled trials were identified, including 4,006 adult patients and nine treatment strategies. Our results showed that distal splenorenal shunt and TIPS provided the best control of hemorrhage. Endoscopic variceal ligation with medication resulted in the highest OS rate. Medication alone resulted in poor OS and treatment failure. Conclusions: We performed a systematic comparison of diverse treatments for cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Our meta-analysis indicated that a TIPS and distal splenorenal shunt resulted in lower rates of rebleeding than did other therapies. Furthermore, drugs are more suitable for combination therapy than monotherapy.

Secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.

Comparison of Therapies for Secondary Prophylaxis of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhosis: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

The decision regarding the optimal secondary prophylactic treatment for esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) in hepatic cirrhosis is controversial. A network meta-analysis was conducted to assess the benefits of various treatments for the secondary prophylaxis of EVB in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

A thorough examination of databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials, was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials up to December 2019. Key primary outcomes included mortality and rebleeding. Within the identified databases, a network meta-analysis was performed. Results were expressed by using a 95% credible interval (CrI) and odds ratios (ORs). The quality of results was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

FINDINGS

Forty-eight trials with 4415 participants with cirrhosis and portal hypertension who had a history of recent variceal bleeding were included. Carvedilol ranked first (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA], 87.4%) in overall survival, and some advantage was suggested; however, the findings were not statistically significant, compared with endoscopic variceal ligation + nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB) (OR, 0.59; CrI, 0.28, 1.3), NSBB + isosorbide mononitrate (OR, 0.67; CrI, 0.33, 1.4), and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) (OR, 0.52; CrI, 0.24, 1.1). NSBB + isosorbide mononitrate (SUCRA, 63.9%) ranked higher than NSBB + endoscopic variceal ligation (SUCRA, 49.6%) in reducing mortality. TIPS (SUCRA, 98.8%) ranked higher than other treatments in reducing rebleeding but did not confer any survival benefit.

IMPLICATIONS

TIPS ranks first in preventing rebleeding of secondary prophylaxis of EVB and carvedilol shows outstanding efficacy in improving survival. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: identifier CRD42019131814.

Comparison of the effectiveness of 11 mainstay treatments for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis: A network meta-analysis

The purpose of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), endoscopic options, medications and mainstay combination therapies for patients with cirrhosis who have had at least one episode of variceal haemorrhage. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases, as well as the reference lists of relevant articles, were searched to identify eligible studies. P-scores, that were based solely on the point estimates and standard errors of the network estimates, were performed to rank all treatments, on a scale from 0 (worst) to 1 (best). The odds ratio (OR) was determined to assess effects on mortality, treatment failure and bleeding from gastroesophageal ulcers. A total of 43 randomized controlled trials comprising 3,787 adult patients were included. In total, 26 (61%) trials adopted concealed randomization, while most studies did not specify blinding. The drug combination of nadolol and isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) ranked first for lowering risks of overall mortality (P-score=0.8162), mortality due to liver failure (P-score=0.7536) and bleeding from gastroesophageal ulcers (P-score=0.7536). This combination was determined to be superior to endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) alone (OR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.42-0.94) and TIPS alone in reducing overall mortality (OR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.40-0.96). ES was more likely to increase treatment failure compared with TIPS, endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), ES plus EVL, EVL plus nadolol/propranolol plus ISMN and nadolol/propranolol plus ISMN. In conclusion, the present network meta-analysis suggested that for a decreased mortality due to variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis, nadolol plus ISMN may be a preferable choice, while ES is associated with a higher risk of unfavourable treatment outcomes. Further well-controlled studies are required to further elucidate the appropriate treatment options.

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

BACKGROUND

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

SUMMARY

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

Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension

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

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Variceal rebleeding: use of drug therapy and endoscopic band ligation

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

Variceal and other portal hypertension related bleeding

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

Endoscopic management of esophageal varices

The rupture of gastric varices results in variceal hemorrhage, which is one the most lethal complications of cirrhosis. Endoscopic therapies for varices aim to reduce variceal wall tension by obliteration of the varix. The two principal methods available for esophageal varices are endoscopic sclerotherapy (EST) and band ligation (EBL). The advantages of EST are that it is cheap and easy to use, and the injection catheter fits through the working channel of a diagnostic gastroscope. Endoscopic variceal ligation obliterates varices by causing mechanical strangulation with rubber bands. The following review aims to describe the utility of EBL and EST in different situations, such as acute bleeding, primary and secondary prophylaxis

Prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices in cirrhosis

Variceal hemorrhage is one of the major complications of liver cirrhosis associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Its management has evolved over the past decade and has substantially reduced the rate of first and recurrent bleeding while decreasing mortality. In general, treatment of esophageal varices can be divided into three categories: primary prophylaxis (prevention of first episode of bleeding), management of acute bleeding, and secondary prophylaxis (prevention of recurrent hemorrhage). The goal of this paper is to describe the current evidence behind the management of esophageal varices. We will discuss indications for primary prophylaxis and the different modes of therapy, pharmacological and interventional treatment in acute bleeding, and therapeutic options in preventing recurrent bleeding. The indications for TIPS will also be reviewed including its possible benefits in acute variceal hemorrhage.

Endoscopic band ligation versus pharmacological therapy for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a meta-analysis of published, full-length, randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) versus pharmacological therapy for the primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Eighteen randomized clinical trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were further pooled into a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Among 1023 patients in 12 trials comparing EBL with beta-blockers for primary prevention, there was no significant difference in gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.79 [95% CI 0.61 to 1.02]), all-cause deaths (RR 1.06 [95% CI 0.86 to 1.30]) or bleeding-related deaths (RR 0.66 [95% CI 0.38 to 1.16]). There was a reduced trend toward significance in variceal bleeding with EBL compared with betablockers (RR 0.72 [95% CI 0.54 to 0.96]). However, variceal bleeding was not significantly different between the two groups in high-quality trials (RR 0.84 [95% CI 0.60 to 1.17]). Among 687 patients from six trials comparing EBL with beta-blockers plus isosorbide mononitrate for secondary prevention, there was no effect on either gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.95 [95% CI 0.65 to 1.40]) or variceal bleeding (RR 0.89 [95% CI 0.53 to 1.49]). The risk for all-cause deaths in the EBL group was significantly higher than in the medical group (RR 1.25 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.55]); however, the rate of bleeding related deaths was unaffected (RR 1.16 [95% CI 0.68 to 1.97]).

CONCLUSIONS

Both EBL and beta-blockers may be considered first-line treatments to prevent first variceal bleeding, whereas betablockers plus isosorbide mononitrate may be the best choice for the prevention of rebleeding.

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.

Meta-analysis: isosorbide-mononitrate alone or with either beta-blockers or endoscopic therapy for the management of oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

The evidence concerning the use of isosorbide-mononitrate (IsMn) for oesophageal varices is equivocal.

AIM

To assess the effects of IsMn for patients with oesophageal varices and no previous bleeding (primary prevention) or previous variceal bleeding (secondary prevention).

METHODS

Systematic review with meta-analyses of randomized trials on IsMn alone or with beta-blockers or endoscopic therapy for oesophageal varices. Electronic and manual searches were combined. Randomized trials on primary and secondary prevention were included. The primary outcome measure was mortality. Intention-to-treat random effects meta-analyses were performed. The robustness of the results was assessed in trial sequential analyses.

RESULTS

Ten randomized trials on primary and 17 on secondary prevention were included. Evidence of bias was identified. No apparent effect of IsMn on mortality compared with placebo or beta-blockers or IsMn plus beta-blockers vs. beta-blockers was identified. Compared with endoscopic therapy, IsMn plus beta-blockers had no apparent effect on bleeding, but did seem to reduce mortality in secondary prevention (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.89), but not in primary prevention. The effect of IsMn plus beta-blockers on mortality in secondary prevention was not confirmed in trial sequential analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Isosorbide-mononitrate used alone or in combination with beta blockers does not seem to offer any reduction in bleeding in the primary or secondary prevention of oesophageal varices. Compared with endoscopic therapy, there may be a survival advantage in using IsMn and beta-blockers, but additional large multicentre trials are needed to verify this finding.

[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.

Clinical pharmacology of portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is an increase in pressure in the portal vein and its tributaries. It is defined as a portal pressure gradient (the difference in pressure between the portal vein and the hepatic veins) greater than 5 mm Hg. Although this gradient defines portal hypertension, a gradient of 10 mm Hg or greater defines clinically significant portal hypertension, because this pressure gradient predicts the development of varices, decompensation of cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The most direct consequence of portal hypertension is the development of gastroesophageal varices that may rupture and lead to the development of variceal hemorrhage. This article reviews the pathophysiologic bases of the different pharmacologic treatments for portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis and places them in the context of the natural history of varices and variceal hemorrhage.

A specialized, nurse-run titration clinic: a feasible option for optimizing beta-blockade in non-clinical trial patients

OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials of variceal bleeding prophylaxis demonstrate beta-blocker (BB) withdrawal rates of about 15%. We aimed to evaluate the dosing and tolerance of BBs achievable in a specialized, nurse-run BB titration clinic with non-trial participants.

METHODS

We analyzed prospectively collected data from 154 patients seen at the clinic between 2004 and 2009. BBs were titrated to patient tolerance. The therapeutic target (TT) was defined as a heart rate between 50 and 60 beats per minute (bpm) on the last clinic visit and/or maximum doses of BBs (propranolol 320 mg, nadolol 160 mg).

RESULTS

Eight of 154 patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 146. Fifty-five percent were male (mean age, 55; mean model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, 9), with 74% Child-Pugh class A. Median end-of-study doses were 120 mg propranolol and 60 mg nadolol. Seventy-nine percent of patients reached the TT before they were discharged from the clinic. Side effects were experienced by 72% of patients. Thirty-four percent had no need for dose reduction; 17% required transient dose reduction, 16% permanent dose reduction, and 5% BB discontinuation. Among patients requiring permanent dose reduction or discontinuation, the top reasons were fatigue and orthostatic symptoms. Independent predictors of achieving higher doses of BB were the absence of side effects, younger age, and diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that a specialized BB titration clinic attains low withdrawal rates and higher doses, similar to those in clinical trials. Nurse-led clinics can contribute to successful titration of these important medications.

Pharmacotherapy plus endoscopic intervention is more effective than pharmacotherapy or endoscopy alone in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Previous clinical trials on the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding yielded mixed results regarding the efficacy of endoscopic procedures compared with pharmacotherapy only.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of endoscopic procedures with that of pharmacotherapy in the prevention of mortality and rebleeding.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized, controlled trials of the efficacy of pharmacotherapy and endoscopic therapy. A meta-analysis was performed by using the Comprehensive MetaAnalysis software package. A 2-sided alpha error <.05 was considered statistically significant (P < .05).

PATIENTS

Twenty-five clinical trials with a total of 2159 patients were eligible for meta-analysis.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed for all-cause mortality, mortality from rebleeding, all-cause rebleeding, and rebleeding caused by varices.

RESULTS

Pharmacotherapy was as effective as endoscopic procedures in preventing rebleeding (RR 1.067; 95% CI, 0.865-1.316; P = .546), variceal rebleeding (RR 1.143; 95% CI, 0.791-1.651; P = .476), all-cause mortality (RR 0.997; 95% CI, 0.827-1.202, P = .978), and mortality from rebleeding (RR 1.171; 95% CI, 0.816-1.679; P = .39). Pharmacotherapy combined with endoscopic procedures did not reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.787; 95% CI, 0.587-1.054; P = .108) or mortality caused by rebleeding (RR 0.786; 95% CI, 0.445-1.387; P = .405) compared with endoscopic procedures. However, combination therapy (endoscopic procedure plus pharmacotherapy) significantly reduced the incidence of all rebleeding (RR 0.623; 95% CI, 0.523-0.741; P < .001) and variceal rebleeding (RR 0.601; 95% CI, 0.440-0.820; P < .001).

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity of patient population and different treatment protocols may have affected our meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacotherapy may be as effective as endoscopic therapy in reducing rebleeding rates and all-cause mortality. Pharmacotherapy plus endoscopic intervention is more effective than endoscopic intervention alone.

Systematic review: secondary prevention with band ligation, pharmacotherapy or combination therapy after bleeding from oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Variable methods are available for secondary prevention after oesophageal variceal bleeding (EVB).

AIM

To compare band ligation (BL), pharmacotherapy (PT) and BL+PT for EVB secondary prevention.

METHODS

A systematic search of databases, references and meeting abstracts was conducted for randomized trials of BL, PT or BL+PT. The outcomes were mortality, rebleeding and adverse events. A random-effects model was used for meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Twelve trials were included (6 BL vs. PT, 4 BL+PT vs. BL, 2 BL+PT vs. PT). All trials used beta-blockers +/- isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) as PT. Mortality was not significantly different among trials. Rebleeding was not significantly different for BL vs. PT (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73-1.37). BL reduced rebleeding compared with PT for trials with mean beta-blocker dose <80 mg/day (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.91). There were nonsignificant differences in rebleeding for BL+PT vs. BL (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31-1.08) and BL+PT vs. PT (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56-1.03). There was no difference in adverse events between BL vs. PT, but was higher with BL+PT vs. BL.

CONCLUSION

Band ligation and PT alone are comparable for secondary prevention of rebleeding after EVB. Further trials with adequate PT dosing are required to determine the efficacy of combination BL+PT therapy.

Efficacy of β-adrenergic blocker plus 5-isosorbide mononitrate and endoscopic band ligation for prophylaxis of esophageal variceal rebleeding: A meta-analysis

AIM: To systematically assess the efficacy and safety of β-adrenergic blocker plus 5-isosorbide mononitrate (BB + ISMN) and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) on prophylaxis of esophageal variceal rebleeding.

METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of BB + ISMN and EBL on prophylaxis of esophageal variceal rebleeding were gathered from Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trial Registry and China Biological Medicine database between January 1980 and August 2007. Data from five trials were extracted and pooled. The analyses of the available data using the Revman 4.2 software were based on the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS: Four RCTs met the inclusion criteria. In comparison with BB + ISMN with EBL in prophylaxis of esophageal variceal rebleeding, there was no significant difference in the rate of rebleeding [relative risk (RR), 0.79; 95% CI: 0.62-1.00; P = 0.05], bleeding-related mortality (RR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.31-1.42; P = 0.40), overall mortality (RR, 0.81; 95% CI: 0.61-1.08; P = 0.15) and complications (RR, 1.26; 95% CI: 0.93-1.70; P = 0.13).

CONCLUSION: In the prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding, BB + ISMN are as effective as EBL. There are few complications with the two treatment modalities. Both BB + ISMN and EBL would be considered as the first-line therapy in the prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding.

Review article: the modern management of portal hypertension--primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND

Variceal bleeding is a life-threatening complication of liver cirrhosis with a high probability of recurrence. Treatment to prevent first bleeding or rebleeding is mandatory.

AIM

To provide an overview of the current knowledge on the best evidence-based therapeutic options to prevent first or recurrent bleeding from oesophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

For the preparation of this narrative review, we sought to analyse randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and side effects of pharmacological or endoscopic therapy for the primary and secondary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding.

RESULTS

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and nonselective beta-blockers are both effective in preventing first bleeding. Until more long-term data are available, nonselective beta-blockers should be the first treatment option because of less severe side effects. EBL is an alternative when beta-blockers are contraindicated or not tolerated. Patient preference may also be considered. For prevention of rebleeding, nonselective beta-blockers (preferably in association with isosorbide-5-mononitrate) or EBL are both effective and good alternative treatments. A combination of both treatments may be the best alternative.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

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.

Prevention of recurrent variceal bleeding

Patients surviving a first episode of variceal bleeding have a risk of over 60% of experiencing recurrent haemorrhages within 1 year from the index episode. Because of this, all patients surviving a variceal bleeding should receive active treatments for the prevention of rebleeding. beta-Blockers+/-isosorbide-5-mononitrate and band ligation are effective in preventing recurrent bleeding and both can be used. Combination of beta-blockers+/-isosorbide-5-mononitrate and band ligation may be the best treatment to prevent rebleeding but more studies are needed to confirm this issue. In patients with recurrent variceal bleeding despite appropriate medical and endoscopic treatment, transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt is highly effective in controlling bleeding. The efficacy is not significantly different from that of shunt surgery (distal splenorenal shunt or 8mm H-graft shunt), especially since the introduction of polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents. Therefore, in this situation, transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt using polytetrafluoroethylene stents should be the treatment of choice.

Acute variceal bleeding: pharmacological treatment and primary/secondary prophylaxis

Variceal bleeding is one of the most severe complications of portal hypertension related to liver cirrhosis. Primary prophylaxis is considered mandatory in patients with cirrhosis and high-risk oesophageal varices, and once varices have bled, every effort should be made to arrest the haemorrhage and prevent further bleeding episodes. In acute variceal bleeding, vasoactive drugs that lower portal pressure should be started even before endoscopy, and should be maintained for up to 5 days. The choice of vasoactive drug should be made according to local resources. Terlipressin, somatostatin and octreotide can be used; vasopressin plus transdermal nitroglycerin may be used if no other drug is available. In variceal bleeding, antibiotic therapy is also mandatory. In primary and secondary prophylaxis, beta-blockers are the mainstay of therapy. In secondary prophylaxis (but not in primary prophylaxis) these drugs can be combined with organic nitrates.

Current endoscopic therapy of variceal bleeding

Variceal ligation has proved more effective and safer than sclerotherapy and is currently the endoscopic treatment of choice for oesophageal varices. In acute bleeding, vasoactive drugs should be started before endoscopy and maintained for 2-5 days. The efficacy of drugs is improved when associated with emergency endoscopic therapy. Antibiotic prophylaxis should also be used. To prevent rebleeding, both endoscopic ligation and the combination of beta-blockers and nitrates may be used. Adding beta-blockers improves the efficacy of ligation. Haemodynamic responders to beta-blockers+/-nitrates (those with a decrease in portal pressure gradient HVPG to <12 mmHg or by >20% of baseline) have a marked reduction in the risk of haemorrhage and will not need further treatment. Beta-blockers significantly reduce the risk of a first haemorrhage in patients with large varices, and they improve survival. As compared to beta-blockers, endoscopic ligation reduces the risk of first bleeding without affecting mortality, and should be used in patients with contraindications or intolerance to beta-blockers.

Prevention of recurrent esophageal variceal hemorrhage: review and current recommendations

Variceal rebleeding is a very frequent and severe complication in cirrhotic patients; therefore, its prevention should be mandatory. Lately several studies demonstrated that the rate of rebleeding was decreased by 40% and overall survival is improved by 20% with beta-blockers. However, this treatment presents some problems, such as the number of nonresponders and contraindications for its use. Recent trials found that the combination of beta-blockers with mononitrate of isosorbide to be superior to beta-blockade alone. Furthermore, endoscopic band ligation also shown to decrease the frequency of rebleeding, complications, and death compared with sclerotherapy and should be the preferred endoscopic treatment. In addition, the comparison between combined pharmacologic treatment with endoscopic treatment present similar rebleeding and mortality rates. More recently, the addition of nadolol to endoscopic band ligation increased the efficacy of endoscopy alone in the prevention of variceal rebleeding. These studies suggest that banding plus drugs could be the treatment of choice for the prophylaxis of rebleeding. When these treatments fail, the recommendation is to use transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) or surgical shunts. Both treatments are effective in preventing rebleeding; however, they are associated with a greater risk of encephalopathy. The comparison of portacaval shunts with TIPS demonstrated that TIPS patients presented higher rebleeding, treatment failure, and transplantation. Another randomized controlled trial comparing distal splenorenal shunt with TIPS shows that variceal rebleeding was similar in both groups without differences in encephalopathy and mortality. The only difference observed was the higher rate of reintervention observed in the TIPS group to maintain his patency.

Diagnosis and therapy of esophageal vascular disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The most relevant studies concerning the diagnosis of esophageal varices, primary and secondary prophylaxis and treatment of variceal bleeding published in the last year are reported.

RECENT FINDINGS

The specific areas reviewed are those that refer to studies on the noninvasive or minimally invasive diagnosis of the presence of esophageal varices, the prevention of the formation and of the progression of varices from small to large, the prevention of the first variceal haemorrhage, the treatment of the acute bleeding episode, and the prevention of rebleeding.

SUMMARY

Relevant studies are reviewed regarding the validation of noninvasive indices for the presence of varices, the use of the esophageal videocapsule to diagnose varices, the comparison of methods to prevent the first variceal haemorrhage, the use of the hepatic vein pressure measurement to monitor the haemodynamic response to beta-blockers, the long-term protection from bleeding by beta-blockers, the use of a double dose of somatostatin to control bleeding, the evaluation of the best endoscopic method to treat variceal bleeding in addition to vasoactive drugs, and the identification of prognostic factors for early and late mortality after a variceal bleed.

Portal hypertension and its complications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Portal hypertension is responsible for most of the complications associated with cirrhosis, specifically variceal hemorrhage, ascites and hepatic encephalopathy. Progress in understanding the pathophysiology of portal hypertension and improvements in the diagnosis and management of its complications that have occurred over the last year are discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Endothelial dysfunction contributes to the pathogenesis of portal hypertension and may represent a novel therapeutic target. Hepatic venous pressure gradient measurements, when properly performed, are useful in the management of patients with cirrhosis. Hyponatremia in cirrhosis has prognostic value and novel aquaretic and other agents may provide alternative approaches to the management of chronic liver disease. The mechanisms for bacterial translocation in cirrhosis that predisposes patients to infectious complications, such as spontaneous bacterial peritionitis, are being explored. Adrenal insufficiency is common in septic patients with advanced cirrhosis and corticosteroids may provide a survival benefit. Pulmonary disease complicates the management of patients with advanced liver disease.

SUMMARY

Significant advances continue to be made in the diagnosis and management of the complications of portal hypertension in the face of an increasing burden of chronic liver disease.