Long term management of oesophageal varices

Midodrine plus propranolol versus propranolol alone in preventing first bleed in patients with cirrhosis and severe ascites: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Propranolol, a non-selective beta-blocker, commonly used to prevent variceal bleed, but might precipitate circulatory dysfunction in severe ascites. Midodrine, an alpha-1 adrenergic agonist improves renal perfusion and systemic hemodynamics. Addition of midodrine might facilitate higher maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of propranolol, thereby less risk of variceal bleed in cirrhosis patients with severe ascites.

METHODS

140 patients with cirrhosis and severe/refractory ascites were randomized- propranolol and midodrine (Gr.A,n = 70) or propranolol alone (Gr.B,n = 70). Primary outcome was incidence of bleed at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included ascites control, achievement of target heart rate (THR), HVPG response and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable between two groups. Cumulative incidence of bleed at 1 year was lower in Gr.A than B (8.5%vs.27.1%,p-0.043). The MTD of propranolol was higher in Gr.A (96.67 ± 36.6 mg vs. 76.52 ± 24.4 mg; p-0.01) and more patients achieved THR (84.2%vs.55.7%,p-0.034). Significantly higher proportion of patients in Gr.A had complete resolution of ascites [17.1%vs.11.4%,p-0.014), diuretic tolerance (80%vs.60%,p-0.047) at higher doses(p-0.02) and lesser need for paracentesis. Patients in Gr.A also had greater reduction in variceal grade (75.7%vs.55.7%;p-0.01), plasma renin activity (54.4% from baseline) (p = 0.02). Mean HVPG reduction was greater in Gr.A than B [4.38 ± 2.81 mmHg(23.5%) vs. 2.61 ± 2.87 mmHg(14.5%),p-0.045]. Complications like post-paracentesis circulatory dysfunction and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis on follow-up were higher in Gr.B than A (22.8%vs.51.4%,p = 0.013 and 10%vs.15.7%, p = 0.03, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Addition of midodrine facilitates effective use of propranolol in higher doses and greater HVPG reduction, thereby preventing first variceal bleed, reduced paracentesis requirements with fewer ascites- related complications in patients with cirrhosis with severe/refractory ascites.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of variceal ligation vs. beta-blockers for primary prevention of variceal bleeding

Although both beta-blockade (BB) and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) are used for primary prevention of variceal bleeding (VB) in patients with cirrhosis with moderate to large esophageal varices (EVs), the more cost-effective option is uncertain. We created a Markov decision model to compare BB and EVL in such patients, examining both cost-effectiveness (cost per life year [LY]) and cost-utility (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]). Outcomes included cost per LY, cost per QALY, proportions of persons with VB, TIPS, and all-cause mortality. EVL and BB were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). When considering only LYs, initial EVL exceeds the benchmark of 50,000 dollars/LY, with an ICER of 98,407 dollars. However, when quality of life (QoL) is considered, EVL is cost-effective compared to BB (ICUR of 25,548 dollars/QALY). In sensitivity analysis, EVL is cost-effective if the yearly risk of EV bleeding is > or = 0.26 (base case 0.15), the relative risk of bleeding on BB is > or = 0.69 (base case 0.58), or if the relative risk of bleeding with EVL is < 0.27 (base case 0.35). The ICUR favored EVL unless the relative risk of bleeding on BB is < 0.46, the relative risk of bleeding with EVL is > 0.46, or the time horizon is < or = 24 months. Whether EVL is "cost-effective" relative to BB therapy for primary prevention of EV bleeding depends on whether LYs or QALYs are considered. If only LYs are considered, then EVL is not cost-effective compared to BB therapy; however, if QoL is considered, then EVL is cost-effective.

Risk and causes of gastroesophageal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis

Background/Aim. Variceal bleeding is the most life-threating complication in liver cirrhosis. The aim of this study was to analyze the sources of gastroesophageal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis and to ascertain the risk factors of bleeding from esophageal varices. Methods. This prospective study included 52 patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Severity of liver dysfunction according to Child?s classification, coagulation parameters, and endoscopic findings were analyzed. In patients with varices we analyzed the size, color, location of varices, and the presence of red signs. The varices were classified as small, medium and large. Results. Esophageal varices were found in 76.9% of the patients. Isolated varices were present in 36.6%, and associated with other findings in 40,3%. Small varices were present in 10%, medium in 25% and large in 65% patients. Of them 55% had variceal bleeding. Variceal bleeding was present in 50% of the patients with medium and in 65.38% of the patients with large varices. There was no bleeding in the patients with small varices. Endoscopy revealed red signs before bleeding in 85% of the patients with large varices. There was a higher incidence of variceal bleeding in the Child?s group B. There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the coagulation parameters in patients with and without variceal bleeding. Rebleeding was present in 86.36% of the patients. Most of them (52.63%) were rebleeding between 7 weeks and 12 months after the first episode of variceal bleeding. In the patients with the most severe hepatocellular dysfunction (Child?s group C) the period between the first bleeding and rebleeding was the shortest (mean, 20.8 days). Conclusion. Our study revealed that esophageal varices are the most frequent sources of bleeding in the patients with liver cirrhosis. There is the association between the first bleeding and large varices and the red signs. Coagulation disorders and hepatic dysfunction were not related to the initial episode of variceal bleeding. The risk of early rebleeding was higher in the patients with severe hepatic dysfunction (Child?s class C). .

Primary prophylaxis against variceal bleeding: beta-blockers, endoscopic ligation, or both?

Variceal bleeding is one of the complications of cirrhosis that leads to significant morbidity and mortality. It is recommended that all patients with cirrhosis be screened for gastroesophageal varices and those with large varices should be offered primary prophylaxis. Nonselective beta-blockers (nadolol or propranolol) are the treatment of choice for primary prophylaxis but there are a number of limitations to their use. A number of studies have evaluated the efficacy of variceal band ligation (VBL) in providing primary prophylaxis, either in comparison to no treatment or to beta-blockers. VBL is very effective in preventing the initial bleed when compared to no treatment, but it is not superior to beta-blockers. In this issue of the journal the effect of beta-blockers on bleeding in patients undergoing VBL is examined and no benefit compared to VBL alone is shown. Thus, patients with large varices should be treated with beta-blockers and VBL should be offered to those cirrhotics who are unable to take beta-blockers. Further study is required to determine if VBL in combination with beta-blockers is more effective than the beta-blockers alone.

Endoscopic variceal ligation plus propranolol versus endoscopic variceal ligation alone in primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The role of propranolol in addition to EVL in the prevention of first variceal bleed has not been evaluated. This prospective randomized controlled trial compared endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) with propranolol and EVL alone in the prevention of first variceal bleed among patients with high-risk varices.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and forty-four consecutive patients with high-risk varices were randomly allocated to EVL plus propranolol (Gr I, n = 72) or EVL alone (Gr II, n = 72). EVL was done at 2-wk interval till obliteration of varices. In Gr I, incremental dosage of propranolol (sufficient to reduce heart rate to 55 beats/min or 25% reduction from baseline) was administered and continued after obliteration of varices. The endpoints of the study were bleeding and death.

RESULTS

The two groups of patients had comparable baseline characteristics; follow-up (Gr I: 13.1 +/- 11.5 months, Gr II: 11.2 +/- 9.9 months), number of cirrhotic and noncirrhotic portal hypertension patients [Gr I 64 (88.6%) and 8 (11.4%), Gr II 63 (87.5%) and 9 (12.5%)], and frequency of Child's A (15 vs 18), B (38 vs 35), and C (19 vs 19). The mean daily propranolol dose achieved in Gr I was 95.6 +/- 38.6 mg. Eleven patients had bleeds, 5 in Gr I and 6 in Gr II. All patients bled before the obliteration of varices, the actuarial probability of first bleed at 20 months was 7% in Gr I and 11% in Gr II (p= 0.72). Six patients died in the combination and 8 in EVL group. All deaths in Gr I were due to nonbleed-related causes, while in Gr II, 2 deaths were bleed related, the actuarial probability of death at 20 months was 8% and 15%, respectively (p= 0.37). The probability of bleed-related death was comparable (p= 0.15). At the end of follow-up, 4 patients in Gr I and 11 in Gr II had recurrence of varices (p= 0.03). Side effects on propranolol were seen in 22% patients, in 8% it had to be stopped. There were no serious complications of EVL.

CONCLUSIONS

Both EVL plus propranolol and EVL alone are effective in primary prophylaxis of bleed from high-risk varices. Addition of propranolol does not decrease the probability of first bleed or death in patients on EVL. However, the recurrence of varices is lower if propranolol is added to EVL.

Comparison of endoscopic ligation and propranolol for the primary prevention of variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND METHODS

We compared propranolol therapy and endoscopic ligation for the primary prevention of bleeding from esophageal varices. This prospective, controlled trial included consecutive eligible patients who had large varices (>5 mm in diameter) that were at high risk for bleeding. The patients were assigned to either propranolol therapy, at a dose sufficient to decrease the base-line heart rate by 25 percent, or variceal ligation, to be performed weekly until the varices were obliterated or so reduced in size that it was not possible to continue treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 89 patients, 82 of whom had cirrhosis of the liver, 44 received propranolol and 45 underwent variceal ligation. The mean (+/-SD) duration of follow-up in each group was 14+/-9 and 13+/-10 months, respectively. The mean time required to achieve an adequate reduction in the heart rate was 2.5+/-1.7 days; the mean number of sessions needed to complete variceal ligation was 3.2+/-1.1. After 18 months, the actuarial probability of bleeding was 43 percent in the propranolol group and 15 percent in the ligation group (P=0.04). Twelve patients in the propranolol group and four in the ligation group had bleeding. Three of the four in the ligation group had bleeding before their varices had been obliterated. Nine patients in the ligation group had recurrent varices, a mean of 3.7 months after the initial treatment. Five patients in each group died; bleeding from the varices was the cause of death of four patients in the propranolol group and of three in the ligation group. There were no serious complications of variceal ligation; in the propranolol group, treatment was stopped in two patients because of side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with high-risk esophageal varices, endoscopic ligation of the varices is safe and more effective than propranolol for the primary prevention of variceal bleeding.