Octreotide enhances portal pressure reduction induced by propranolol in cirrhosis: a randomized, controlled trial

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding in people with oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years. There are several different treatments to prevent bleeding, including: beta-blockers, endoscopic sclerotherapy, and variceal band ligation. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers to December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previous bleeding from oesophageal varices and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation or previously received prophylactic treatment for oesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 randomised clinical trials (6653 participants) in the review. Sixty trials (6212 participants) provided data for one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those at high risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices. The follow-up in the trials that reported outcomes ranged from 6 months to 60 months. All but one of the trials were at high risk of bias. The interventions compared included beta-blockers, no active intervention, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates, nitrates, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, and portocaval shunt. Overall, 21.2% of participants who received non-selective beta-blockers ('beta-blockers') - the reference treatment (chosen because this was the most common treatment compared in the trials) - died during 8-month to 60-month follow-up. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates all had lower mortality versus no active intervention (beta-blockers: HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.67; direct comparison HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.42 to 0.83; 10 trials, 1200 participants; variceal band ligation: HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.74; direct comparison HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.12 to 2.14; 3 trials, 355 participants; sclerotherapy: HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.85; direct comparison HR 0.61, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.90; 18 trials, 1666 participants; beta-blockers plus nitrates: HR 0.41, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.85; no direct comparison). No trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation had a higher number of serious adverse events (number of events) than beta-blockers (rate ratio 10.49, 95% CrI 2.83 to 60.64; 1 trial, 168 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers plus nitrates had a higher number of 'any adverse events (number of participants)' than beta-blockers alone (OR 3.41, 95% CrI 1.11 to 11.28; 1 trial, 57 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, adverse events (number of events) were higher in sclerotherapy than in beta-blockers (rate ratio 2.49, 95% CrI 1.53 to 4.22; direct comparison rate ratio 2.47, 95% CrI 1.27 to 5.06; 2 trials, 90 participants), and in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.08 to 2.76; 1 trial, 140 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was lower in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.04 to 0.71; 1 trial, 173 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was higher in nitrates than beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 6.40, 95% CrI 1.58 to 47.42; 1 trial, 52 participants). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates may decrease mortality compared to no intervention in people with high-risk oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis and no previous history of bleeding. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in a higher number of serious adverse events than beta-blockers. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of beta-blockers versus variceal band ligation on variceal bleeding. The evidence also indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in most of the remaining comparisons.

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.

Second-look endoscopy-guided therapy under sedation prevents early rebleeding after variceal ligation for acute variceal bleeding

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether second-look endoscopy (SLE)-guided therapy could be used to prevent post-endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) early bleeding.

METHODS

Consecutive cirrhotic patients with large esophageal varices (EV) receiving successful EVL for acute variceal bleeding (AVB) or secondary prophylaxis were enrolled. The patients were randomized into a SLE group and a non-SLE group (NSLE) 10 days after EVL. Additional endoscopic interventions as well as proton pump inhibitors and octreotide administration were applied based on the SLE findings. The post-EVL early rebleeding and mortality rates were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 252 patients were included in the final analysis. Post-EVL early rebleeding (13.5% vs 4.8%, P = 0.016) and bleeding-caused mortality (4.8% vs 0%, P = 0.013) were more frequently observed in the NSLE group than in the SLE group. However, post-EVL early rebleeding and mortality rates were reduced by SLE in patients receiving EVL for AVB only but not in those receiving secondary prophylaxis. Patients with Child-Pugh classification B to C at randomization (hazard ratio [HR] 8.77, P = 0.034), AVB at index EVL (HR 3.62, P = 0.003), discontinuation of non-selective β-blocker after randomization (HR 4.68, P = 0.001) and non-SLE (HR 2.63, P = 0.046) were more likely to have post-EVL early rebleeding. No serious adverse events occurred during SLE.

CONCLUSION

SLE-guided therapy reduces post-EVL early rebleeding and mortality rates in cirrhotic patients with large EV receiving EVL for AVB.

Pharmacologic Management of Portal Hypertension

Terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide are recommended as pharmacologic treatment of acute variceal hemorrhage. Nonselective β-blockers decrease the risk of variceal hemorrhage and hepatic decompensation, particularly in those 30% to 40% of patients with good hemodynamic response. Carvedilol, statins, and anticoagulants are promising agents in the management of portal hypertension. Recent advances in the pharmacologic treatment of portal hypertension have mainly focused on modifying an increased intrahepatic resistance through nitric oxide and/or modulation of vasoactive substances. Several novel pharmacologic agents for portal hypertension are being evaluated in humans.

Functional, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Aspects of Gastrointestinal Hormones

Gastrointestinal (GI) hormones are essential to many physiologic functions in our body. They have many GI and extra-GI functions. Some of the functions of these hormones, which have GI and extra-GI sources, are still unknown. Specific GI hormones can affect the brain to control food intake, while others can proliferate normal and neoplastic tissue when their receptors are expressed in certain neoplasms. GI hormones also have many diagnostic and therapeutic roles. Physiologic and pathophysiologic aspects as well as the diagnostic and therapeutic values of GI hormones are elaborated in this review.

Portal Hypertension and Related Complications: Diagnosis and Management

Portal hypertension is a major complication of cirrhosis, and its consequences, including ascites, esophageal varices, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatorenal syndrome, lead to substantial morbidity and mortality. The past several decades have seen major improvements in the clinical management of complications of portal hypertension, resulting in substantial gains in patient outcomes. However, important challenges remain. This review focuses on the pathophysiology and diagnosis of portal hypertension and discusses general approaches in the management of patients with ascites as a result of portal hypertension.

Hepatorenal syndrome: do the vasoconstrictors work?

The development of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is related to many changes associated with advanced cirrhosis. Because vasoconstrictors correct systemic and splanchnic hemodynamic abnormalities, they are effective treatments for HRS, although only in approximately 40% of HRS patients. Emerging data show that combination treatment with vasoconstrictors and TIPS may yield better outcomes than either alone. All HRS patients should be assessed for liver transplantation. Reversing HRS before transplantation is associated with better long-term survival. Combined liver– kidney transplantation is indicated for those with irreversible kidney injury. Otherwise, there is some merit in performing a liver transplant first and only considering a kidney transplant later.

Evaluation of the effects of somatostatin on portal hemodynamics in rabbits after hepatectomy by color Doppler ultrasound

AIM: To investigate the value of color Doppler ultrasound in evaluating the effects of somatostatin on portal hemodynamics in rabbits after hepatectomy.

METHODS: Thirty-two rabbits were randomly divided into three groups: control group (n = 6), normal saline group (n = 13), somatostatin group (n = 13). The normal saline group and somatostatin group underwent 50% hepatectomy, while the control group underwent a sham operation. Color Doppler ultrasound was then used to measure and compare various portal vein hemodynamic parameters, including flow direction, diameter, hemokinetic velocity, average flow rate, and blood flow volume, among each group.

RESULTS: There were no significant differences in portal diameter and hemokinetic velocity among all the three groups before and after the surgery (all P > 0.05). However, the average flow rate and blood flow volume were significant lower in the somatostatin group than in the control group and normal saline group (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Application of somatostatin early after hepatectomy may reduce the flow rate and blood flow volume in the portal vein, which may be the cause that somatostatin reduces elevated portal pressure. Color Doppler ultrasound is effective in evaluating the effects of somatostatin on portal hemodynamics in rabbits after hepatectomy.

Treatment of hepatorenal syndrome

Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a type of renal failure that occurs in patients with advanced cirrhosis. It is a result of splanchnic arterial vasodilation, renal vasoconstriction, reduced effective arterial volume, and potentially reduced cardiac output. Often, HRS is a fatal complication, and the only definitive treatment currently available is liver or liver-kidney transplantation. A number of other treatment modalities have been tested for the management of HRS, but most evidence is derived from small noncontrolled studies. The primary role of these treatment options is to provide a bridge to liver transplantation. Treatment may also provide acute reversal of renal failure and some symptomatic relief, but relapse is a common occurrence. The best therapeutic options appear to be those that reverse portal hypertension, splanchnic vasodilation, and/or renal vasoconstriction. Vasopressin analogs, particularly terlipressin, have emerged as the preferred pharmacologic therapies for management of HRS. Albumin is an appropriate adjunctive therapy to terlipressin and can be used to prevent HRS in patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt may provide a surgical option for qualified patients with HRS. Octreotide is ineffective as monotherapy but may be used as adjunctive therapy to other vasoactive agents. Dopamine agonists, endothelin antagonists, natriuretic peptides, and nitric oxide synthase inhibitors have not been effective for reversing HRS. Artificial hepatic support therapies have demonstrated the ability to improve laboratory abnormalities in patients with HRS, but their effect on clinical outcomes has not been determined. The role of renal replacement therapies or the newer artificial hepatic support therapies need further evaluation before they can be routinely recommended.

Effects of somatostatin on portal vein hemodynamics in the early stage after hepatectomy

AIM: To investigate the effects of somatostatin on portal vein hemodynamics in the early stage after hepatectomy and explore the mechanism under such effects.

METHODS: Thirty-two rabbits were randomly divided into three groups: group A (n = 6, control group), group B (n = 13, normal saline treatment group) and group C (n = 13, somatostatin treatment group). Rabbits in all three groups underwent portal vein catheterization, while only those in Groups B and C underwent 50% partial hepatectomy. An intraoperative and postoperative intravenous infusion of normal saline and somatostatin was given. Before and after the treatment (0.5, 1, 2 h), the pressure, flow direction, diameter, hemokinetic velocity, average flow rate and blood flow of the portal vein were detected and compared.

RESULTS: After hepatectomy, the portal pressure increased. The increase in the portal pressure in group B was significantly higher than that in group C (0.5 h: 436.001 ± 169.654 Pa vs 258.012 ± 167.497 Pa, P < 0.05; 1 h: 394.324 ± 163.182 Pa vs 224.767 ± 164.653 Pa, P < 0.05; 2 h: 193.092 ± 154.356 Pa vs 351.861 ± 183.579 Pa, P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in portal diameter and hemokinetic velocity among all the three groups before and after treatment (P > 0.05). However, the average flow rate and blood flow of the portal vein in group C were significant lower than those in groups A and B (both P < 0.05). Two hours after hepatectomy, no significant differences in the expression of ALT and AST were noted between groups A and B.

CONCLUSION: Application of somatostatin in the early stage of hepatectomy may reduce elevated portal pressure, which may be associated with somatostatin-induced decrease in flow rate and blood flow of the portal vein.