Comparison of drugs facilitating endoscopy for patients with acute variceal bleeding: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Real-world comparison of terlipressin vs. octreotide as an adjuvant treatment in the management of variceal bleeding

Variceal bleeding is a major complication and the leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of terlipressin vs octreotide as an adjuvant to endoscopic management of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding in a real-time scenario. We reviewed the medical records of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding from January 2005 to December 2020 at our tertiary care Aga Khan University Hospital. Mortality was assessed after 6 weeks. A total of 842 patients with variceal bleed were evaluated. 624 patients (74.1%) and 218 patients (25.9%) received Terlipressin and Octreotide respectively. On multiple regression analysis, cardiac events during hospital stay (OR: 11.22), presence of Porto-systemic encephalopathy (OR: 3.79), and elevated bilirubin levels at the time of presentation were found to be independent risk factors for increased six weeks mortality. Moreover, cardiac events during hospital stay (OR: 3.26), Porto-systemic encephalopathy at presentation (OR: 3.06), and octreotide administration (OR: 1.80) were identified as independent risk factors for increased length of hospital stay. Terlipressin and Octreotide have similar outcomes in terms of control of bleeding, hospital stay, mortality, and side effects when used as adjuvant therapy for the management of variceal bleeding.

Vasoactive Drug Therapy and Clinical Nursing of Patients with Cardiovascular Disease

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a common human disease with a large number of patients. Vasoactive drugs have a good effect on the contraction and expansion of blood vessels, which can provide certain help for the management of cardiovascular diseases. However, the clinical care of cardiovascular disease has always been based on the superficial resistance level of body fat, weight, and so on, which is unfavorable for the real recovery of patients with cardiovascular disease. This article aims to quantitatively evaluate the effects of clinical care based on vasoactive drug therapy and intrinsic factors of cardiovascular disease. For the treatment of vasoactive drugs, this paper selects the principle of action of the adrenal hormone to judge and analyze the expansion and contraction of the cardiovascular disease. For the clinical nursing of patients with cardiovascular disease, based on multivariate logistic regression, this paper selects internal factors such as age and blood pressure to model the nursing effect. Experiments have shown that the logistic regression model established in this paper can evaluate well the recovery effect of patients with cardiovascular disease. The AUC value of the model reached around 0.9. This showed that the clinical care of patients with cardiovascular disease can not only rationally judge the recovery effect through the model but also adjust the physical and mental conditions of patients with cardiovascular disease according to the coefficients of the model to achieve the best recovery effect.

Treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS software, using Bayesian methods, and calculated the differences in treatments using 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. We performed also the direct comparisons from RCTs using the same codes and the same technical details.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.

Management of portal hypertension based on portal hemodynamics

Portal hypertension is most commonly caused by chronic liver disease. As liver damage progresses, portal pressure gradually elevates and hemodynamics of the portal system gradually change. In normal liver, venous returns from visceral organs join the portal trunk and flow into the liver (hepatopetal blood flow). As portal pressure increases due to liver damage, congestion of some veins of the visceral organ occurs (blood flow to and from). Finally, the direction of some veins (the left gastric vein in particular) of the visceral organ change (hepatofugal blood flow) and develop as collateral veins (portosystemic shunt) to reduce portal pressure. Therefore, esophagogastric varices serve as drainage veins for the portal venous system to reduce the portal pressure. In chronic liver disease, as intrahepatic vascular resistance is increased (backward flow theory) and collateral veins develop, adequate portal hypertension is required to maintain portal flow into the liver through an increase of blood flow into the portal venous system (forward flow theory). Splanchnic and systemic arterial vasodilatations increase the blood flow into the portal venous system (hyperdynamic state) and lead to portal hypertension and collateral formation. Hyperdynamic state, especially around the spleen, is detected in patients with portal hypertension. The spleen is a regulatory organ that maintains portal flow into the liver. In this review, surgical treatment, interventional radiology, endoscopic treatment, and pharmacotherapy for portal hypertension (esophagogastric varices in particular) are described based on the portal hemodynamics using schema.

Pharmacological management of portal hypertension and its complications in children: lessons from adults and opportunities for the future

INTRODUCTION

Portal hypertension (PHT) and its complications in children are thought to be distinct from adult PHT in several areas, including the underlying bio-physiology of a child in which PHT develops, but also because of the pediatric-specific etiologies that drive disease progression. And yet pharmacologic approaches to PHT in children are mainly based on adult data, modified for pediatric practice. This reality has been driven by a lack of data specific to children.

AREAS COVERED

The authors discuss current therapeutic approaches to PHT in children, including management of acute gastrointestinal variceal bleed, pharmacotherapy in prophylaxis, and established and emerging therapies to combat systemic co-morbidities that result from PHT. The few areas where pediatric-specific data exist are highlighted and the many gaps in knowledge that remain unresolved are underscored.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite decades of experience, optimal management of pediatric PHT remains undefined. In large part, this can be directly linked to a lack of basic understanding related to the unique pathophysiology and natural history that defines PHT in children. As a result, meaningful research into the utility and effectiveness of pharmacotherapy in children with PHT remains in its infancy. Large, multi-center, prospective studies will be needed to begin to establish an infrastructure on which a pediatric-specific research agenda can be built.