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

Albumin‑bilirubin grade and INR for the prediction of esophagogastric variceal rebleeding after endoscopic treatment in cirrhosis

Rebleeding following endoscopic treatment in patients with cirrhosis is a serious life-threatening complication. In the present study, a novel, reliable and non-invasive score for prediction of rebleeding following endoscopic therapy for esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB) was developed. The present retrospective study recruited cirrhotic patients with EGVB (n=596) who underwent endoscopic therapy. Patients hospitalized from January 2015 to January 2020 were grouped into a training (n=437) cohort to develop the new score and those hospitalized from February 2020 to February 2022 were grouped into a validation (n=159) cohort to validate the score. The international normalized ratio (INR) and albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade were used to develop the INR-ALBI (IALBI) score to predict risk of rebleeding. In the training cohort, the prognostic performance of the IALBI score and other ALBI-associated scores (modified ALBI, platelet-ALBI and ALBI-fibrosis-4) at 1, 3 and 12 months was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and Kaplan-Meier analysis. At each time point, most areas under the ROC curve of IALBI were higher than those of other ALBI-associated scores, particularly for prediction of early rebleeding. At 1 month, the rebleeding rates of patients with IALBI grade 2 and 3 were ~10.0- and 19.5-times higher than those of patients with grade 1, respectively. The negative predictive value (NPV) of IALBI for the training and validation cohort at 1 month was 100.0 and 97.8%, respectively. For viral and non-viral patients in the training cohort, IALBI showed good predictive ability and NPV for early rebleeding. The IALBI grading system successfully assessed rebleeding, particularly early rebleeding, in cirrhotic patients with EGVB following endoscopic therapy IALBI grade 1, predicted low risk of rebleeding and may not require endoscopic treatment again in the short-term.

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.

Number of endoscopic sessions to eradicate varices identifies high risk of rebleeding in cirrhotic patients

Background and aims

Risk stratification to identify patients with high risk of variceal rebleeding is particularly important in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. In clinical practice, eliminating gastroesphageal varices thoroughly after sequential endoscopic treatment reduces the rebleeding rate, however, no simple method has been build to predict high risk of variceal rebleeding. We conducted this study to explore the value of the number of endoscopic sessions required to eradicate gastroesphageal varices in identifying high risk of rebleeding.

Patients and methods

Consecutive cirrhotic patients received sequential endoscopic therapy between January 2015 and March 2020 were enrolled. Endoscopic treatment was performed every 1–4 weeks until the eradication of varices. The primary endpoint was variceal rebleeding.

Results

A total of 146 patients were included of which 60 patients received standard therapy and 86 patients underwent sequential endoscopic treatment alone. The cut-off value of the number of sequential endoscopic sessions is 3.5 times. Variceal rebleeding was significant higher in patients with endoscopic sessions > 3 times versus ≤ 3 times (61.5% vs. 17.5%, p < 0.001). Variceal rebleeding of patients with endoscopic sessions ≤ 3 times was significant lower than patients with > 3 times in group of standard therapy (19.6% vs. 88.9%, p < 0.001) and endoscopic therapy (15.9% vs. 47.1%, p = 0.028) respectively.

Conclusion

The number of sequential endoscopic sessions required to eradicate the varices is related to the risk of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis. If three times of endoscopic treatment can not eradicate the varices, a more aggressive treatment such as TIPS should be seriously considered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-022-02283-0.

Pathophysiology and Management of Variceal Bleeding

Cirrhosis is the fifth leading cause of death in adults. Advanced cirrhosis can cause significant portal hypertension (PH), which is responsible for many of the complications observed in patients with cirrhosis, such as varices. If portal pressure exceeds a certain threshold, the patient is at risk of developing life-threatening bleeding from varices. Variceal bleeding has a high incidence among patients with liver cirrhosis and carries a high risk of mortality and morbidity. The management of variceal bleeding is complex, often requiring a multidisciplinary approach involving pharmacological, endoscopic, and radiologic interventions. In terms of management, three stages can be considered: primary prophylaxis, active bleeding, and secondary prophylaxis. The main goal of primary and secondary prophylaxis is to prevent variceal bleeding. However, active variceal bleeding is a medical emergency that requires swift intervention to stop the bleeding and achieve durable hemostasis. We describe the pathophysiology of cirrhosis and PH to contextualize the formation of gastric and esophageal varices. We also discuss the currently available treatments and compare how they fare in each stage of clinical management, with a special focus on drugs that can prevent bleeding or assist in achieving hemostasis.

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

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

Use of nonselective β blockers after variceal eradication in cirrhotic patients undergoing secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding: a critical review of current evidence

Nonselective β blockers (NSBBs) combined with esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) are recommended for secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) in cirrhotic patients according to the current practice guidelines and consensus. However, until now, there is a paucity of recommendations regarding the use of NSBBs in cirrhotic patients who achieved variceal eradication. In this review paper, we firstly introduced a case who achieved variceal eradication after additional use of NSBBs for secondary prophylaxis of EVB and then did not require further endoscopic therapy during repeated endoscopic surveillance, and subsequently discuss the importance of NSBBs for secondary prophylaxis of EVB, the effect of NSBBs after variceal eradication, adherence to NSBBs, screening for variceal recurrence, and timing of endoscopic surveillance after variceal eradication.

Role of band ligation for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

AIM

To summarize and critically examine the role of band ligation in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

A literature review was performed using the MEDLINE and PubMed databases. The search terms consisted of the words “endoscopic band ligation” OR “variceal band ligation” OR “ligation” AND “secondary prophylaxis” OR “secondary prevention” AND “variceal bleeding” OR “variceal hemorrhage” AND “liver cirrhosis”. The data collected from relevant meta-analyses and from the most recent randomized studies that were not included in these meta-analyses were used to evaluate the role of endoscopic band ligation in an effort to demonstrate the most recent advances in the treatment of esophageal varices.

RESULTS

This study included 11 meta-analyses published from 2002 to 2017 and 10 randomized trials published from 2010 to 2017 that evaluated the efficacy of band ligation in the secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. Overall, the results proved that band ligation was superior to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Moreover, the use of β-blockers in combination with band ligation increased the treatment effectiveness, supporting the current recommendations for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. The use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt was superior to combination therapy regarding rebleeding prophylaxis, with no difference in the survival rates; however, the results concerning the hepatic encephalopathy incidence were conflicting. Recent advances in the management of secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding have targeted a decrease in portal pressure based on the pathophysiological mechanisms of portal hypertension.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that future research should be conducted to enhance current interventions and/or to develop innovative treatment options with improved clinical endpoints.

Betablockers do not increase efficacy of band ligation in primary prophylaxis but they improve survival in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is used for primary (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) of variceal bleeding. Current guidelines recommend combined use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and EBL for SP, while in PP either NSBB or EBL should be used.

AIM

To assess (re-)bleeding rates and mortality in cirrhotic patients receiving EBL for PP or SP for variceal bleeding.

METHODS

(Re-)bleeding rates and mortality were retrospectively assessed with and without concomitant NSBB therapy after first EBL in PP and SP.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and sixty-six patients with oesophageal varices underwent EBL from 01/2005 to 06/2015. Among the 284 patients undergoing EBL for PP, n = 101 (35.6%) received EBL only, while n = 180 (63.4%) received EBL + NSBBs. In 482 patients on SP, n = 163 (33.8%) received EBL only, while n = 299 (62%) received EBL + NSBBs. In PP, concomitant NSBB therapy neither decreased bleeding rates (log-rank: P = 0.353) nor mortality (log-rank: P = 0.497) as compared to EBL alone. In SP, similar re-bleeding rates were documented in EBL + NSBB vs EBL alone (log-rank: P = 0.247). However, EBL + NSBB resulted in a significantly lower mortality rate (log-rank: P<0.001). A decreased risk of death with EBL + NSBB in SP (hazard ratio, HR: 0.50; P<0.001) but not of rebleeding, transplantation or further decompensation was confirmed by competing risk analysis. Overall NSBB intake reduced 6-months mortality (HR: 0.53, P = 0.008) in SP, which was most pronounced in patients without severe/refractory ascites (HR: 0.37; P = 0.001) but not observed in patients with severe/refractory ascites (HR: 0.80; P = 0.567).

CONCLUSIONS

EBL alone seems sufficient for PP of variceal bleeding. In SP, the addition of NSBB to EBL was associated with an improved survival within the first 6 months after EBL.

Prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices

Bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is a serious complication in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Although there has been significance improvement in the prognosis of variceal bleeding with advancement in diagnostic and therapeutic modalities for its management, mortality rate still remains high. Therefore, appropriate prevention and rapid, effective management of bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is very important. Recently, various studies about management of gastoesophageal varices, including prevention of development and aggravation of varices, prevention of first variceal bleeding, management of acute variceal bleeding, and prevention of variceal rebleeding, have been published. The present article reviews published articles and practice guidelines to present the most optimal management of patients with gastroesophageal varices.

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.

Stratifying risk in the prevention of recurrent variceal hemorrhage: Results of an individual patient meta-analysis

Endoscopic variceal ligation plus beta-blockers (EVL+BB) is currently recommended for variceal rebleeding prophylaxis, a recommendation that extends to all patients with cirrhosis with previous variceal bleeding irrespective of prognostic stage. Individualizing patient care is relevant, and in published studies on variceal rebleeding prophylaxis, there is a lack of information regarding response to therapy by prognostic stage. This study aimed at comparing EVL plus BB with monotherapy (EVL or BB) on all-source rebleeding and mortality in patients with cirrhosis and previous variceal bleeding stratified by cirrhosis severity (Child A versus B/C) by means of individual time-to-event patient data meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials. The study used individual data on 389 patients from three trials comparing EVL plus BB versus BB and 416 patients from four trials comparing EVL plus BB versus EVL. Compared with BB alone, EVL plus BB reduced overall rebleeding in Child A (incidence rate ratio 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.89; P = 0.025) but not in Child B/C, without differences in mortality. The effect of EVL on rebleeding was different according to Child (P for interaction <0.001). Conversely, compared with EVL, EVL plus BB reduced rebleeding in both Child A and B/C, with a significant reduction in mortality in Child B/C (incidence rate ratio 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.85; P = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Outcomes of therapies to prevent variceal rebleeding differ depending on cirrhosis severity: in patients with preserved liver function (Child A), combination therapy is recommended because it is more effective in preventing rebleeding, without modifying survival, while in patients with advanced liver failure (Child B/C), EVL alone carries an increased risk of rebleeding and death compared with combination therapy, underlining that BB is the key element of combination therapy. (Hepatology 2017;66:1219-1231).

Carvedilol for portal hypertension in cirrhosis: systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical and haemodynamic effects of carvedilol for patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Cochrane library databases, EMBASE and the Science Citation Index Expanded through December 2015. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included.

OUTCOME MEASURE

We calculated clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, bleeding-related mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding) as well as haemodynamic outcomes (hepatic venous pressure (HVPG) reduction, haemodynamic response rate, post-treatment arterial blood pressure (mean arterial pressure; MAP) and adverse events).

RESULTS

12 RCTs were included. In 7 trials that looked at haemodynamic outcomes compared carvedilol versus propranolol, showing that carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction (%) of HVPG within 6 months (mean difference -8.49, 95% CI -12.36 to -4.63) without a greater reduction in MAP than propranolol. In 3 trials investigating differences in clinical outcomes between carvedilol versus endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVL), no significant differences in mortality or variceal bleeding were demonstrated. 1 trial compared clinical outcomes between carvedilol versus nadolol plus isosorbide-5-mononitrate (ISMN), and showed that no significant difference in mortality or bleeding had been found. 1 trial comparing carvedilol versus nebivolol showed a greater reduction in HVPG after 14 days follow-up in the carvedilol group.

CONCLUSIONS

Carvedilol may be more effective in decreasing HVPG than propranolol or nebivolol and it may be as effective as EVL or nadolol plus ISMN in preventing variceal bleeding. However, the overall quality of evidence is low. Further large-scale randomised studies are required before we can make firm conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015020542.

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.

Ileal conduit stomal variceal bleeding managed by endovascular embolization

Ileal conduit stomal varices are rare, and may result in bleeding. The standard treatment modality for management of this type of hemorrhage has not been established. We present the case of a 70-year-old woman with progressive ileal conduit stomal variceal bleeding which was successfully managed by endovascular embolization via the transjugular transhepatic approach. In conclusion, transjugular transhepatic endovascular embolization is a good choice in patients with ileal conduit stomal variceal bleeding who have failed conservative therapy.

Randomized, controlled trial of carvedilol versus nadolol plus isosorbide mononitrate for the prevention of variceal rebleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Carvedilol has been shown to be more effective than propranolol in decreasing portal pressure. Sufficient data from controlled trials remains limited. This trial compared the relative safety and efficacy between carvedilol and nadolol plus isosorbide mononitrate in preventing variceal rebleeding.

METHODS

After successful control of acute esophageal variceal bleeding, eligible patients were randomized to the carvedilol group, 61 patients, using carvedilol 6.25-12.5 mg daily or the N + I group, 60 patients, using nadolol 40-80 mg plus isorsorbide-5-mononitrate 20 mg daily. The end points were rebleeding from varices, adverse events or death.

RESULTS

After a median follow up of 30 months, recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding developed in 37 patients (61%) in the carvedilol group and 37 patients (62%) in the N + I group (P = 0.90). Recurrent bleeding from esophageal varices occurred in 31 patients (51%) in the carvedilol group and in 26 patients (43%) in the N + I group (P = 0.46). Recurrent bleeding from gastric varices occurred in two patients (3%) in the carvedilol group and in eight patients (13%) in the N + I group (P = 0.05). Severe adverse events occurred in one patient in the carvedilol group and 17 patients in the N + I group (P < 0.0001). Fifteen patients of the carvedilol group and 17 patients in the N + I group died (P = 0.83). Two patients in the carvedilol group and three patients in the N + I group died of variceal bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Carvedilol was as effective as nadolol plus isorsorbide-5 -mononitrate mononitrate in the prevention of gastroesophageal variceal rebleeding with fewer severe adverse events and similar survival.

Meta-analysis: banding ligation and medical interventions for the prevention of rebleeding from oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

In patients with oesophageal varices, the combination of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and medical therapy is recommended as standard of care for prevention of rebleeding. The results of previous meta-analyses on this topic are equivocal.

AIM

To assess the effects of EVL plus medical therapy vs. monotherapy (EVL or medical therapy alone) for secondary prevention in oesophageal varices.

METHODS

Electronic and manual searches were combined. The primary outcome measures were overall rebleeding (variceal and nonvariceal) and mortality. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed with subgroup, sensitivity, regression and sequential analyses to identify sources of intertrial heterogeneity and the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Nine randomised trials were included. In total, 442 patients were randomised to combination therapy and 513 to monotherapy. Combination therapy reduced rebleeding (RR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.54-0.85; number needed to treat eight patients). The result was confirmed in sequential and regression analyses, but not when limiting the analysis to trials with adequate selection bias control. No effect on overall mortality was identified (RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.65-1.21). Combination therapy reduced bleeding-related mortality (RR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.27-0.99; number needed to treat 33 patients) and the risk of rebleeding from oesophageal varices. Combination therapy increased the risk of serious adverse events in fixed, but not in random-effects meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of endoscopic variceal ligation and medical therapy reduce the risk of rebleeding, but not overall mortality. Additional research is needed to determine why reduced rebleeding rates do not lead to reduced mortality.

Managing varices: drugs, bands, and shunts

Drugs, bands, and shunts have all been used in the treatment of varices and variceal hemorrhage and have resulted in improved outcomes. However, the specific use of each of these therapies depends on the setting (primary or secondary prophylaxis, treatment of AVH) and on patient characteristics. The indications for each are summarized in Table 4.

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.

Benefit of combination β-blocker and endoscopic treatment to prevent variceal rebleeding: A meta-analysis

AIM: To determine whether the association of β-blockers with endoscopic treatment is superior to endoscopic treatment alone for the secondary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding.

METHODS: Randomised controlled trials comparing sclerotherapy (SCL) with SCL plus β-blockers (BB) or banding ligation (BL) with BL plus BB were identified. Main outcomes were overall and 6, 12 and 24 mo rebleeding rates, as well as overall and 6, 12 and 24 mo mortality. Two statistical methods were used: Yusuf-Peto, and Der Simonian and Laird. Inter-trial heterogeneity was systematically taken into account.

RESULTS: Seventeen randomised controlled trials were included, 14 with SCL and 3 with BL. Combination β-blocker and endoscopic treatment significantly reduced rebleeding rates at 6, 12 and 24 mo and overall [odds ratio (OR): 2.20, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.69-2.85, P < 0.0001] compared to endoscopic treatment alone. Mortality at 24 mo was significantly lower for the combined treatment group (OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.16-2.90, P = 0.009), as well as overall mortality (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.03-1.98, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION: Combination therapy should thus be recommended as the first line treatment for secondary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding.