Adherence to surveillance endoscopy following hospitalization for index esophageal variceal hemorrhage

Full adherence to cirrhosis quality indicators is associated with lower mortality in acute variceal bleeding: Nationwide audit

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is a major complication in patients with cirrhosis. Using a nationwide AVB audit, we performed a nested cohort study to determine whether full adherence to the AVB quality indicator (QI) improves clinical outcomes in patients with cirrhosis and AVB.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

We assessed real-world adherence to AVB QI among patients with cirrhosis admitted for AVB in all public hospitals in Singapore between January 2015 and December 2020. Full adherence was considered when all 5 QIs were fulfilled: prophylactic antibiotics, vasoactive agents, timely endoscopy, endoscopic hemostasis during index endoscopy, and nonselective beta-blockers after AVB. We compare 6-week mortality between the full adherence and suboptimal adherence groups using a propensity-matched cohort.A total of 989 patients with AVB were included. Full adherence to all AVB QI was suboptimal (56.5%). Analysis of the propensity-matched cohort with comparable baseline characteristics showed that full adherence was associated with a lower risk of early infection (20.0% vs. 26.9%), early rebleeding (5.2% vs. 10.2%), and mortality at 6 weeks (8.2% vs. 19.7%) and 1 year (21.3% vs. 35.4%) ( p <0.05 for all). While full adherence was associated with a lower 6-week mortality regardless of the MELD score, nonadherence was associated with a higher 6-week mortality despite a lower predicted risk of 6-week mortality. Despite high adherence to the recommended process measures, patients with CTP-C remain at a higher risk of rebleeding, 6-week and 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Full adherence to the AVB QI should be the target for quality improvement in patients with cirrhosis.

Secondary Prevention of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding Is Often Imperfect: A National, Population-Based Cohort Study of 3592 Patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding is important to improve prognosis, but uptake of guidelines is unknown in a real-world setting. Here, we determined the proportion of patients receiving appropriate nonselective beta-blocker treatment and repeat upper endoscopy after a first episode of esophageal variceal bleeding within a reasonable time frame.

METHODS

Population-based registers were used to identify all patients with a first episode of esophageal variceal bleeding in Sweden from 2006 to 2020. Crosslinkage between registers was performed to receive information on the cumulative incidence of patients with a dispensation of nonselective beta-blockers and repeat upper endoscopy within 120 days from baseline. Overall mortality was investigated using Cox regression.

RESULTS

In total, 3592 patients were identified, with a median age of 63 (interquartile range, 54-71) years. The cumulative incidence of a dispensation of nonselective beta-blockers and a repeat endoscopy within 120 days was 33%. A total of 77% received either of these treatments. Overall mortality was high, with 65% of patients dying after esophageal variceal bleeding during the full follow-up period (median 1.7 years). We observed an improved overall mortality during the later years of the study period (adjusted hazard ratio for the 2016-2020 period compared with the 2006-2010 period, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.89). Patients with receipt of nonselective beta-blockers and repeat upper endoscopy had better overall survival compared with those without (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding has not been widely undertaken, with many patients not receiving guideline-supported interventions within a reasonable time frame. This highlights a need to raise awareness on appropriate prevention strategies to clinicians and patients.

The road to pandemic recovery: Tracking COVID-19's impact on cirrhosis care and outcomes among 111,558 Veterans

BACKGROUND AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate quarterly trends in process and health outcomes among Veterans with cirrhosis and assess the factors associated with cirrhosis outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

APPROACH RESULTS

US Veterans with cirrhosis were identified using the Veterans Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse. Quarterly measures were evaluated from September 30, 2018, through March 31, 2022, including twice yearly screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC-6), new HCC, surveillance for or treatment of esophageal varices, variceal bleeding, all-cause hospitalization, and mortality. Joinpoint analyses were used to assess the changes in trends over time. Logistic regression models were used to identify the demographic and medical factors associated with each outcome over time. Among 111,558 Veterans with cirrhosis with a mean Model for End-stage Liver Disease-Sodium of 11±5, rates of HCC-6 sharply declined from a prepandemic peak of 41%, to a nadir of 28%, and rebounded to 36% by March 2022. All-cause mortality did not significantly change over the pandemic, but new HCC diagnosis, EVST, variceal bleeding, and all-cause hospitalization significantly declined over follow-up. Quarterly HCC diagnosis declined from 0.49% to 0.38%, EVST from 50% to 41%, variceal bleeding from 0.15% to 0.11%, and hospitalization from 9% to 5%. Rurality became newly, significantly associated with nonscreening over the pandemic (aOR for HCC-6=0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.86; aOR for EVST=0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.997).

CONCLUSIONS

The pandemic continues to impact cirrhosis care. Identifying populations at the highest risk of care disruptions may help to address ongoing areas of need.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patient: Issues on the table

Patients with liver cirrhosis are fragile and present specific clinical hallmarks. When undergoing to gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, these subjects require an individual pre evaluation, taking into account: Level of haemostasis impairment, the individual risk of infection, the impact of sedation on hepatic encephalopathy and other factors. The overall assessment of liver function, employing common scoring systems, should be also assessed in the preprocedural phase. Beside some common general problems, regarding GI endoscopy in cirrhotic subjects, also specific issues are present for some frequent indications or procedures. For instance, despite an increased incidence of adenomas in cirrhosis, colon cancer screening remains suboptimal in subjects with this disease. Several studies in fact demonstrated liver cirrhosis as a negative factor for an adequate colon cleansing before colonoscopy. On the other hand, also the routine assessment of gastroesophageal varices during upper GI endoscopy presents some concern, since important inter-observer variability or incomplete description of endoscopic findings has been reported in some studies. In this review we discussed in details the most relevant issues that may be considered while performing general GI endoscopic practice, in patient with cirrhosis. For most of these issues there are no guidelines or clear indications. Moreover until now, few studies focused on these aspects. We believe that targeting these issues with corrective measures may be helpful to develop a tailored endoscopic approach for cirrhosis, in the future.

Adherence to Non-Selective Beta Blockers for Prevention of Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Long-term use of non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) is essential for the prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis but may impair the patient's adherence. The present study aimed to investigate the adherence to NSBBs to prevent variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

All patients who had an indication of NSBBs for the prophylaxis of variceal bleeding between February 2018 and June 2019 were screened. Clinical pharmacists gave pre-medication education and recorded the adherence to NSBBs during the patients' hospitalizations. Factors associated with poor adherence were evaluated by univariate logistic regression analysis. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The relationship between poor adherence during follow-up and variceal bleeding after discharge was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 108 patients were screened, of whom 12 were intolerant to NSBBs. Among the 96 remaining patients who could take NSBBs, the average change of heart rate after NSBBs was -10.49 b.p.m. Twenty-two (22.9%) patients had poor adherence to NSBBs due to their refusal to take NSBBs (n = 2), complete forgetfulness to take NSBBs (n = 10), and refusal or forgetfulness to monitor heart rate (n = 10). Univariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that only older age was significantly associated with poor adherence (OR: 1.065, 95% CI: 1.019-1.114, P = 0.005). Patients with poor adherence during follow-up were more likely to develop variceal bleeding after discharge.

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of cirrhotic patients had poor adherence to NSBBs during their hospitalizations. Further studies should explore how to improve the patient's adherence to NSBBs.

Prevalence of drug-related problems using STOPP/START and medication reviews in elderly patients with dementia

BACKGROUND

Drug-related problems (DRPs) are common among elderly patients with dementia. STOPP/START is an explicit tool that has been used to detect DRPs among elderly patients.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare prevalence and type of DRPs identified by STOPP/START with DRPs identified by clinical pharmacists among the same population. Secondary objectives were to investigate factors associated with the use of DRPs using the two methods.

METHOD

Extracts from medical records were used to identify DRPs in 212 patients by using STOPP/START. The patients were ≥65 years of age with dementia or cognitive impairment. An earlier study was performed in the same study population in 2012-2014, where DRPs were identified by clinical pharmacists in order to decrease the number of rehospitalizations.

RESULTS

STOPP/START identified DRPs in 72.2% of the patients compared with 66.0% identified by the clinical pharmacists. The numbers of DRPs identified by the different methods were 326 and 310, respectively. Different types of DRPs were identified with the different tools. STOPP/START mainly identified DRPs in the categories "ineffective/inappropriate drug" and "needs additional drug therapy", whereas the clinical pharmacists identified DRPs in several categories.

CONCLUSION

Even though STOPP/START was able to identify a similar number of DRPs compared with DRPs identified by clinical pharmacists, STOPP/START failed to identify DRPs in several important categories. To cover all DRPs, STOPP/START might be used as a complement to implicit criteria.