Ligation versus propranolol for the primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis

Banding ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prevention in oesophageal varices in adults

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are used as a first-line treatment for primary prevention in patients with medium- to high-risk oesophageal varices. The effect of non-selective beta-blockers on mortality is debated and many patients experience adverse events. Trials on banding ligation versus non-selective beta-blockers for patients with oesophageal varices and no history of bleeding have reached equivocal results.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of banding ligation versus non-selective beta-blockers as primary prevention in adult patients with endoscopically verified oesophageal varices that have never bled, irrespective of the underlying liver disease (cirrhosis or other cause).

SEARCH METHODS

In Febuary 2012, electronic searches (the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded) and manual searches (including scanning of reference lists in relevant articles and conference proceedings) were performed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials were included irrespective of publication status, blinding, and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently extracted data. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. Intention-to-treat random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses were performed. Results were presented as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with I(2) statistic values as a measure of intertrial heterogeneity. Subgroup, sensitivity, regression, and trial sequential analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the overall results, risks of bias, sources of intertrial heterogeneity, and risks of random errors.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen randomised trials on banding ligation versus non-selective beta-blockers for primary prevention in oesophageal varices were included. Most trials specified that only patients with large or high-risk oesophageal varices were included. Bias control was unclear in most trials. In total, 176 of 731 (24%) of the patients randomised to banding ligation and 177 of 773 (23%) of patients randomised to non-selective beta-blockers died. The difference was not statistically significant in a random-effects meta-analysis (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.30; I(2) = 0%). There was no evidence of bias or small study effects in regression analysis (Egger's test P = 0.997). Trial sequential analysis showed that the heterogeneity-adjusted low-bias trial relative risk estimate required an information size of 3211 patients, that none of the interventions showed superiority, and that the limits of futility have not been reached. When all trials were included, banding ligation reduced upper gastrointestinal bleeding and variceal bleeding compared with non-selective beta-blockers (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91; I(2) = 19% and RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.98; I(2) = 31% respectively). The beneficial effect of banding ligation on bleeding was not confirmed in subgroup analyses of trials with adequate randomisation or full paper articles. Bleeding-related mortality was not different in the two intervention arms (29/567 (5.1%) versus 37/585 (6.3%); RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.39; I(2) = 0%). Both interventions were associated with adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found a beneficial effect of banding ligation on primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patient with oesophageal varices. The effect on bleeding did not reduce mortality. Additional evidence is needed to determine whether our results reflect that non-selective beta-blockers have other beneficial effects than on bleeding.

Meta-analysis: beta-blockers versus banding ligation for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding

AIM

To perform an updated meta-analysis comparing β-blockers (BB) with endoscopic variceal banding ligation (EVBL) in the primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were identified through electronic databases, article reference lists and conference proceedings. Analysis was performed using both fixed-effect and random-effect models. Heterogeneity and publication bias were systematically taken into account. Main outcomes were variceal bleeding rates and all-cause mortality, calculated overall and at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months.

RESULTS

19 randomized controlled trials were analyzed including a total of 1,483 patients. Overall bleeding rates were significantly lower for the EVBL group: odds ratio (OR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.55-2.73], p < 0.0001, without evidence of publication bias. Bleeding rates were also significantly lower at 18 months (OR 2.20, 95% CI [1.04-4.60], P = 0.04), but publication bias was detected. When only high quality trials were taken into account, results for bleeding rates were no longer significant. No significant difference was found for either bleeding-related mortality or for all-cause mortality overall or at 6, 12, 18 or 24 months. BB were associated with more frequent severe adverse events (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.60-4.40, P < 0.0001) whereas fatal adverse events were more frequent with EVBL (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-0.99, P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

EVBL appears to be superior to BB in preventing the first variceal bleed, although this finding may be biased as it was not confirmed by high quality trials. No difference was found for mortality. Current evidence is insufficient to recommend EVBL over BB as first-line therapy.

Management of portal hypertension in children

Portal hypertension can be caused by a wide variety of conditions. It frequently presents with bleeding from esophageal varices. The approach to acute variceal hemorrhage in children is a stepwise progression from least invasive to most invasive. Management of acute variceal bleeding is straightforward. But data on primary prophylaxis and long term management prevention of recurrent variceal bleeding in children is scarce, therefore prospective multicenter trials are needed to establish best practices.

Update of endoscopy in liver disease: More than just treating varices

The management of complications in liver disease is often complex and challenging. Endoscopy has undergone a period of rapid expansion with numerous novel and specialized endoscopic modalities that are of increasing value in the investigation and management of the patient with liver disease. In this review, relevant literature search and expert opinions have been used to provide a brief overview and update of the current endoscopic management of patients with liver disease and portal hypertension. The main areas covered are safety of endoscopy in patients with liver disease, the use of standard endoscopy for the treatment of varices and the role of new endoscopic modalities such as endoscopic ultrasound, esophageal capsule, argon plasma coagulation, spyglass and endomicroscopy in the investigation and treatment of liver-related gastrointestinal and biliary pathology. It is clear that the role of the endoscopy in liver disease is well beyond that of just treating varices. As the technology in endoscopy expands, so does the role of the endoscopist in liver disease.

Long-term administration of PPI reduces treatment failures after esophageal variceal band ligation: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Elective esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) is performed to decrease the risk of variceal hemorrhage. EVL is associated with adverse effects, including post-ligated bleeding, chest pain, and dysphagia. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most potent pharmacological agents for inhibition of gastric acid secretion. However, the long-term effect of PPIs after EVL remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of rabeprazole, a PPI, after variceal eradication by EVL.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, controlled trial in Kitasato University East Hospital. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as variceal hemorrhage or severe medical complications. Between July 2007 and September 2010, 43 patients were randomized into this study and followed up until September 2010.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients in the rabeprazole arm received 10 mg rabeprazole daily after EVL, and 22 patients in the control received no antisecretory treatment from the same stage. Baseline characteristics did not differ between the groups (median Child-Pugh score, 6; median age, 62 years; median follow-up, 18.7 months). The trial was stopped early after an interim analysis showed that the risk of bleeding and failure of rabeprazole treatment was lower than that of no antisecretory treatment with the log-rank test showing a significant difference between the groups (P = 0.007) and a hazard ratio of 0.098 [95% confidence interval, 0.012-0.79 (P = 0.029)].

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term administration of PPIs reduced the risk of treatment failure after EVL. Acid suppression therapy should also be considered as a treatment option after EVL.

Care of the liver transplant candidate

Care of the liver transplant candidate is one of the most challenging, yet rewarding aspects of hepatology. Anticipation and intervention for the major complications of advanced liver disease increase the likelihood of survival until transplant.

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.

Management of varices in cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

Acute variceal bleeding is a medical emergency and one of the main causes of mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Timely and effective treatment of the acute bleeding episode results in increased survival, and appropriate prophylactic treatment can prevent bleeding or rebleeding from varices.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss the prevention of development and growth of varices, the primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding, the treatment of acute bleeding, and the management of gastric varices. We systematically reviewed studies, without time limits, identified through Medline and searches of reference lists, and provide an overview of the evidence underlying the -treatment options in the management of varices in cirrhosis.

EXPERT OPINION

The management of variceal hemorrhage relies on nonspecific interventions (e.g., adequate fluid resuscitation, airway protection) and on specific interventions. These are routine prophylactic antibiotics, vasoactive drugs and endoscopic treatment. Procedures such as the placement of a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube or a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) can be lifesaving. The primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding is based on nonselective beta-blockers and endoscopy, even though TIPS or, less frequently, surgery have a role in selected cases.

Oesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients: from variceal screening to primary prophylaxis of the first oesophageal variceal bleeding

Bleeding from oesophageal varices is still a lethal complication in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Approximately 5-10% of patients with cirrhosis will develop oesophageal varices per year, and about 25-30% of cirrhotic patients with oesophageal varices and without previous variceal haemorrhage will bleed from ruptured varices. To date, data on preventing the formation/growth of oesophageal varices (preprimary prophylaxis) are conflicting, with insufficient evidence to use β-blockers. There is evidence for the need for primary prophylaxis, and both β-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation have shown the same efficacy in preventing first bleeding, but which one to prefer is still controversial. The present article reviews the established and potential therapeutic strategies for preventing the development and rupture of oesophageal varices.

Portale Hypertension

Während die Pathologie, die zur portalen Hypertension führt, im prähepatischen, hepatischen und posthepatischen venösen Gefäßbett liegen kann, machen die intrahepatischen Erkrankungen mit Abstand den Großteil aus. In unseren Breitengraden ist es die durch Alkoholabusus bedingte ethyltoxische Leberzirrhose, weltweit die durch Infektionen (HCV, HBV) bedingten Zirrhosen. Die chronische Hepatitis C mit ihren Komplikationen (Leberzellversagen, portale Hypertension und hepatozelluläres Karzinom) wird in den kommenden Jahren trotz moderner Therapieverfahren noch an Bedeutung gewinnen.

[Prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding]

Esophageal varices(EV) are present in 40% and 60% of Child-Pugh A and C patients, respectively when cirrhosis is diagnosed. EV bleeding is a life-threatening complication of liver cirrhosis with a high probability of recurrence. Treatment to prevent first EV bleeding or rebleeding is mandatory. In small EV with high risk of bleeding, nonselective β-blockers should be used for the prevention of first variceal bleeding. For medium to large EV, nonselective β-blockers or endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) may be recommended to high risk varices. But, nonselective β-blockers are the first treatment option to non-high risk varices and EVL is an alternative when nonselective β-blockers are contraindicated or not tolerated. For the prevention of rebleeding, a combination of nonselective β-blockers and EVL may be the best option. A great improvement in the prevention of variceal bleeding has emerged over the last years. However, further therapeutic options that combine higher efficacy, better tolerance and fewer side effects are needed.

A specialized, nurse-run titration clinic: a feasible option for optimizing beta-blockade in non-clinical trial patients

OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials of variceal bleeding prophylaxis demonstrate beta-blocker (BB) withdrawal rates of about 15%. We aimed to evaluate the dosing and tolerance of BBs achievable in a specialized, nurse-run BB titration clinic with non-trial participants.

METHODS

We analyzed prospectively collected data from 154 patients seen at the clinic between 2004 and 2009. BBs were titrated to patient tolerance. The therapeutic target (TT) was defined as a heart rate between 50 and 60 beats per minute (bpm) on the last clinic visit and/or maximum doses of BBs (propranolol 320 mg, nadolol 160 mg).

RESULTS

Eight of 154 patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 146. Fifty-five percent were male (mean age, 55; mean model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, 9), with 74% Child-Pugh class A. Median end-of-study doses were 120 mg propranolol and 60 mg nadolol. Seventy-nine percent of patients reached the TT before they were discharged from the clinic. Side effects were experienced by 72% of patients. Thirty-four percent had no need for dose reduction; 17% required transient dose reduction, 16% permanent dose reduction, and 5% BB discontinuation. Among patients requiring permanent dose reduction or discontinuation, the top reasons were fatigue and orthostatic symptoms. Independent predictors of achieving higher doses of BB were the absence of side effects, younger age, and diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that a specialized BB titration clinic attains low withdrawal rates and higher doses, similar to those in clinical trials. Nurse-led clinics can contribute to successful titration of these important medications.

[Classification and management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding]

The upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains the most frequent emergency in gastroenterology. Due to the different therapeutic approach a distinction between the variceal and the non-variceal bleeding has been established. A risk assessment for the individual patient is crucial for timing of the endoscopic procedure as well as for the estimation of prognosis. This review gives an overview on modern therapeutic techniques for both, variceal and non-variceal bleeding highlighting on success rates but also on potential complications of the different therapeutic interventions.

Overview of the methods and therapies for the primary prevention of variceal bleeding

Patients with cirrhosis develop varices at a rate of 5% per year, and a third of patients with high-risk varices will bleed. The mortality associated with variceal haemorrhage is typically 20%, and still exceeds that of myocardial infarction. Current options to prevent the first variceal bleed include noncardioselective beta-blockers or variceal band ligation. In patients with medium-to-large esophageal varices, both therapies reduce the risk of bleeding by 50% or more. The choice of therapy should take into account patient choice and local availability; although for most patients drug therapy is the preferred first-line treatment. There has been recent interest in carvedilol, with promising initial data. Further studies are necessary before universal recommendation. There is no role for drug therapy in patients without varices, and the use of beta-blockers for patients with small varices is controversial.

Controlled trial of ligation plus nadolol versus nadolol alone for the prevention of first variceal bleeding

Both nadolol and ligation have proved to be effective in the prophylaxis of first variceal bleeding. This study was conducted to evaluate the effects and safety of combining nadolol with ligation. Cirrhotic patients with high-risk esophageal varices but without a bleeding history were considered for enrolment. Eligible patients were randomized to receive band ligation plus nadolol (Combined group, 70 patients) or nadolol alone (Nadolol group, 70 patients). In the Combined group multiligators were applied. Patients received regular ligation treatment at an interval of 4 weeks until variceal obliteration. Nadolol was administered at a dose to reduce 25% of the pulse rate in both the Combined group and the Nadolol group. Both groups were comparable in baseline data. In the Combined group 50 patients (71%) achieved variceal obliteration. The mean dose of nadolol was 52 +/- 16 mg in the Combined group and 56 +/- 19 mg in the Nadolol group. During a median follow-up of 26 months, 18 patients (26%) in the Combined group and 13 patients (18%) in the Nadolol group experienced upper gastrointestinal bleeding (P = NS). Esophageal variceal bleeding occurred in 10 patients (14%) in the Combined group and nine patients (13%) in the Nadolol group (P = NS). Adverse events were noted in 48 patients (68%) in the Combined group and 28 patients (40%) in the Nadolol group (P = 0.06). Sixteen patients in each group died.

CONCLUSION

The addition of ligation to nadolol may increase adverse events and did not enhance effectiveness in the prophylaxis of first variceal bleeding.

Central obesity and atherogenic dyslipidemia in metabolic syndrome are associated with increased risk for colorectal adenoma in a Chinese population

Background

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is generally accepted as the treatment of choice for bleeding from esophageal varices. It is also used for secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal hemorrhage. However, there is no data or guidelines concerning endoscopic control of ligation ulcers. We conducted a retrospective study of EBL procedures analyzing bleeding complications after EBL.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed data from patients who underwent EBL. We analyzed several data points, including indication for the procedure, bleeding events and the time interval between EBL and bleeding.

Results

255 patients and 387 ligation sessions were included in the analysis. We observed an overall bleeding rate after EBL of 7.8%. Bleeding events after elective treatment (3.9%) were significantly lower than those after treatment for acute variceal hemorrhage (12.1%). The number of bleeding events from ligation ulcers and variceal rebleeding was 14 and 15, respectively. The bleeding rate from the ligation site in the group who underwent emergency ligation was 7.1% and 0.5% in the group who underwent elective ligation. Incidence of variceal rebleeding did not vary significantly. Seventy-five percent of all bleeding episodes after elective treatment occurred within four days after EBL. 20/22 of bleeding events after emergency ligation occured within 11 days after treatment. Elective EBL has a lower risk of bleeding from treatment-induced ulceration than emergency ligation.

Conclusions

Patients who underwent EBL for treatment of acute variceal bleeding should be kept under medical surveillance for 11 days. After elective EBL, it may be reasonable to restrict the period of surveillance to four days or even perform the procedure in an out-patient setting.

Role of endoscopy in primary prophylaxis for esophageal variceal bleeding

Cirrhosis is the leading cause of portal hypertension in the Western world. From a clinical standpoint, the most significant consequence of portal hypertension is the development of esophageal varices. Despite the many advances in the management of variceal bleeding, it remains a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension. Primary prophylaxis to prevent the first bleeding episode in patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices is therefore critically important in the management of patients with cirrhosis.

Endoscopic variceal ligation for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal hemorrhage in pre-liver transplant patients

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is widely used to prevent esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with advanced cirrhosis. However, the safety and efficacy of EVL in this setting have not been clearly established. This study included 300 adult patients with cirrhosis on our liver transplant waitlist who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Esophageal varices deemed to be at high risk of bleeding were banded until eradication or transplantation. A retrospective review of patient notes and endoscopy databases was undertaken, and the number of banding episodes, complications, and patient outcomes were recorded. Forty-two of 300 patients presented with or had previous variceal bleeding prior to referral and were excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining 258 patients, 101 underwent a total of 259 banding episodes (2.6 per patient) with a median follow-up post-banding of 18.4 months per patient (a total of 150 patient years). Failed prophylaxis occurred in 2 patients (2%), and there were 3 episodes (1.2%) of acute hematemesis from band-induced ulceration. One patient (1%) had mild esophageal stricturing post-banding without dysphagia. Four of 36 patients (11%) previously found to have moderately sized or larger varices that were not banded presented with hematemesis due to variceal bleeding and were subsequently banded. None of the patients that received banding died because of bleeding or failed to receive a transplant as a result of banding complications. This study shows that in liver transplant candidates, EVL is highly effective in preventing first variceal bleed. Although banding carries a small risk of band-induced bleeding, this rate is low in comparison with the predicted rate of variceal bleeding in this population.

PillCam ESO versus esophagogastroduodenoscopy in esophageal variceal screening: A decision analysis

OBJECTIVES

PillCam ESO has been evaluated as a possible strategy to screen patients with cirrhosis for esophageal varices, but current guidelines recommend patients undergo screening with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), as it is currently the gold standard. Although recent data have suggested that PillCam ESO may be an acceptable alternative for screening, there is limited data on its cost-effectiveness compared with other screening modalities. This study was performed to compare the cost-effectiveness of PillCam ESO versus EGD for esophageal variceal screening.

METHODS

Markov models were constructed to compare 2 screening strategies: PillCam ESO versus EGD. In each arm, patients were followed for a time horizon of 15 years in 1-year transition intervals. All variables, transition probabilities, and costs were derived from the medical literature, and sensitivity analyses were performed on the different variables in the model.

RESULTS

Base-case analysis shows that PillCam ESO is associated with an average expected cost of $22,589 and an average expected effectiveness measure of 12.81 life-years. EGD is associated with an average expected cost of $23,083 and an average expected effectiveness measure of 12.67 life-years. PillCam ESO was found to dominate EGD as a screening strategy for patients with cirrhosis. Sensitivity analyses found several variables within the model to have influential effects on the results.

CONCLUSIONS

PillCam ESO is the dominant strategy for screening patients with cirrhosis for esophageal varices. However, based on a small difference in costs and effectiveness between each strategy, the results would suggest that PillCam ESO and EGD are essentially equivalent strategies.

High-risk esophageal varices in patients treated with locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma: evaluation with regular follow-up liver CT

We evaluated the diagnostic performance of radiologists for the detection of high-risk esophageal varices on regular follow-up liver multi-detector row CT (MDCT) examinations in patients treated with locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A total of 110 cirrhotic patients that had undergone liver MDCT at 4 weeks or sooner before an upper endoscopy were evaluated. Three abdominal radiologists independently interpreted the CT images with the shortest interval of endoscopy in order to detect the presence of high-risk (grade 2 or 3) esophageal varices. With endoscopic grading as the reference standard, the diagnostic performances (areas under the ROC curves) of the three radiologists were 0.977 +/- 0.018, 0.957 +/- 0.024, and 0.939 +/- 0.028, respectively. The mean sensitivity and specificity of the three radiologists were 91.9% and 92.2%, respectively. Our results showed excellent diagnostic performances of radiologists to detect high-risk esophageal varices on regular follow-up liver MDCT in patients treated with locoregional therapies for HCC.

Evaluation of esophageal varices on liver computed tomography: receiver operating characteristic analyses of the performance of radiologists and endoscopists

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Recent liver multi-detector row computed tomography (MDCT) always covers the distal esophagus with an excellent image quality. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of faculty abdominal radiologists with those of radiology residents and endoscopists for the detection of esophageal varices and high-risk esophageal varices on liver MDCT.

METHODS

A total of 104 cirrhotic patients that had undergone liver MDCT 4 weeks or less before an upper endoscopy were evaluated. Two faculty abdominal radiologists, two radiology residents, and two endoscopists independently interpreted all of the CT images to detect the presence of esophageal varices and high-risk (grade 2 or 3) esophageal varices. With endoscopic grading as the reference standard, their performances were compared by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

The areas under the ROC curves for the detection of esophageal varices indicated better performance of the abdominal radiologists (A(z) = 0.868), compared with the radiology residents (A(z) = 0.798) (P = 0.007) and endoscopists (A(z) = 0.784) (P = 0.006). For the detection of high-risk esophageal varices, however, the performance of the abdominal radiologists (A(z) = 0.914) was similar to those of radiology residents (A(z) = 0.900) and endoscopists (A(z) = 0.907) (each P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Experienced readers have a better ability to detect esophageal varices on liver MDCT, but had no higher performance to evaluate high-risk esophageal varices. As the accuracy of detecting high-risk esophageal varices with clinical relevance on liver MDCT is excellent, even by endoscopists, the evaluation of esophageal varices from a recent liver MDCT may be useful to avoid the use of low-yield endoscopy.

Randomized controlled trial of carvedilol versus variceal band ligation for the prevention of the first variceal bleed

Current therapy for preventing the first variceal bleed includes beta-blocker and variceal band ligation (VBL). VBL has lower bleeding rates, with no differences in survival, whereas beta-blocker therapy can be limited by side effects. Carvedilol, a non-cardioselective vasodilating beta-blocker, is more effective in reducing portal pressure than propranolol; however, there have been no clinical studies assessing the efficacy of carvedilol in primary prophylaxis. The goal of this study was to compare carvedilol and VBL for the prevention of the first variceal bleed in a randomized controlled multicenter trial. One hundred fifty-two cirrhotic patients from five different centers with grade II or larger esophageal varices were randomized to either carvedilol 12.5 mg once daily or VBL performed every 2 weeks until eradication using a multibander device. Seventy-seven patients were randomized to carvedilol and 75 to VBL. Baseline characteristics did not differ between the groups (alcoholic liver disease, 73%; median Child-Pugh score, 8; median age, 54 years; median follow-up, 20 months). On intention-to-treat analysis, carvedilol had lower rates of the first variceal bleed (10% versus 23%; relative hazard 0.41; 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.96 [P = 0.04]), with no significant differences in overall mortality (35% versus 37%, P = 0.71), and bleeding-related mortality (3% versus 1%, P = 0.26). Six patients in the VBL group bled as a result of banding ulcers. Per-protocol analysis revealed no significant differences in the outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol is effective in preventing the first variceal bleed. Carvedilol is an option for primary prophylaxis in patients with high-risk esophageal varices.

Does therapy of oesophageal varices influences the progression of varices?

BACKGROUND

Aim of this study was to determine the progression time of oesophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis and to study whether therapy of varices has an impact on the progression time. Parameters associated with the progression of oesophageal varices were analyzed as well.

METHODS

One hundred and eighty-one cirrhotic patients (Child A/B/C: 105/69/15; Child score 7.6+/-2.0, initial variceal grade 1.7+/-0.9) undergoing repeated endoscopy for follow-up and/or treatment of oesophageal varices were retrospectively analyzed. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was applied to identify independent determinants of progression of oesophageal varices.

RESULTS

Of the 189 patients, 26 patients were on beta-blocker therapy only, 52 patients underwent ligation therapy only, and 37 patients received a combination of ligation and beta-blocker therapy of varices. The mean time of progression of oesophageal varices by one grade was 384+/-364 days. This interval did not vary significantly between patients who underwent no treatment or were on a beta-blocker and/or ligation therapy. The serum bilirubin (hazard ratio 1.030; 95% confidence interval, 1.004, 1.055; P<0.03) was the only parameter independently associated with the progression of varices. Initial eradication of varices was achieved after 2.2+/-1.5 ligation sessions. Rings of 6.1+/-2.5 were used in the first banding session and 11.5+/-8.9 rings were needed to achieve eradication of varices.

CONCLUSION

Therapy of oesophageal varices does not influence the progression time of oesophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis of the liver.

Management and treatment of patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension: recommendations from the Department of Veterans Affairs Hepatitis C Resource Center Program and the National Hepatitis C Program

Cirrhosis represents the end stage of any chronic liver disease. Hepatitis C and alcohol are currently the main causes of cirrhosis in the United States. Although initially cirrhosis is compensated, it eventually becomes decompensated, as defined by the presence of ascites, variceal hemorrhage, encephalopathy, and/or jaundice. These management recommendations are divided according to the status, compensated or decompensated, of the cirrhotic patient, with a separate section for the screening, diagnosis, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), as this applies to patients with both compensated and decompensated cirrhosis. In the compensated patient, the main objective is to prevent variceal hemorrhage and any practice that could lead to decompensation. In the decompensated patient, acute variceal hemorrhage and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis are severe complications that require hospitalization. Hepatorenal syndrome is also a severe complication of cirrhosis but one that usually occurs in patients who are already in the hospital and, as it represents an extreme of the hemodynamic alterations that lead to ascites formation, it is placed under treatment of ascites. Recent advances in the pathophysiology of the complications of cirrhosis have allowed for a more rational management of cirrhosis and also for the stratification of patients into different risk groups that require different management. These recommendations are based on evidence in the literature, mainly from randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses of these trials. When few or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and consensus conferences with involvement of recognized experts. A rational management of cirrhosis will result in improvements in quality of life, treatment adherence, and, ultimately, in outcomes.

Care of the cirrhotic patient

Timely surveillance for varices and hepatocellular carcinoma, prophylaxis against spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) improve survival in patients awaiting transplantation. Early diagnosis of minimal or overt hepatic encephalopathy can delay life threatening complications, reduce need for hospitalization, and potentially improve survival pending liver transplantation.

Primary prophylaxis of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding: consensus recommendations of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver

The Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) set up a Working Party on Portal Hypertension in 2002, with a mandate to develop consensus guidelines on various clinical aspects of portal hypertension relevant to disease patterns and clinical practice in the Asia-Pacific region. Variceal bleeding is a consequence of portal hypertension, which, in turn, is the major complication of liver cirrhosis. Primary prophylaxis to prevent the first bleed from varices is one of the most important strategies for reducing the mortality in cirrhotic patients. Experts predominantly from the Asia-Pacific region were requested to identify the different aspects of primary prophylaxis and develop the consensus guidelines. The APASL Working Party on Portal Hypertension evaluated the various therapies that have been used for the prevention of first variceal bleeding. A 2-day meeting was held on January 12 and 13, 2007, at New Delhi, India, to discuss and finalize the consensus statements. Only those statements that were unanimously approved by the experts were accepted. These statements were circulated to all the experts and were subsequently presented at the annual conference of the APASL at Kyoto, Japan, in March 2007.

Comparison of esophageal capsule endoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy for diagnosis of esophageal varices

AIM: To investigate the utility of esophageal capsule endoscopy in the diagnosis and grading of esophageal varices.

METHODS: Cirrhotic patients who were undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for variceal screening or surveillance underwent capsule endoscopy. Two separate blinded investigators read each capsule endoscopy for the following results: variceal grade, need for treatment with variceal banding or prophylaxis with beta-blocker therapy, degree of portal hypertensive gastropathy, and gastric varices.

RESULTS: Fifty patients underwent both capsule and EGD. Forty-eight patients had both procedures on the same day, and 2 patients had capsule endoscopy within 72 h of EGD. The accuracy of capsule endoscopy to decide on the need for prophylaxis was 74%, with sensitivity of 63% and specificity of 82%. Inter-rater agreement was moderate (kappa = 0.56). Agreement between EGD and capsule endoscopy on grade of varices was 0.53 (moderate). Inter-rater reliability was good (kappa = 0.77). In diagnosis of portal hypertensive gastropathy, accuracy was 57%, with sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 17%. Two patients had gastric varices seen on EGD, one of which was seen on capsule endoscopy. There were no complications from capsule endoscopy.

CONCLUSION: We conclude that capsule endoscopy has a limited role in deciding which patients would benefit from EGD with banding or beta-blocker therapy. More data is needed to assess accuracy for staging esophageal varices, PHG, and the detection of gastric varices.

Management of chronic liver failure until liver transplantation

Chronic liver failure is an important cause of morbidity and mortality and is the long-term consequence of many chronic liver diseases. In addition to determining the specific cause of the chronic liver disease, which may be amenable to targeted therapy, it is important to treat the sequelae of chronic liver failure effectively to improve quality of life, to prolong survival, and to provide a bridge to liver transplantation. Once a patient who has chronic liver failure develops hepatic decompensation, liver transplantation is the definitive treatment for those who qualify. Management of chronic liver failure is the focus of this article.

Review article: the modern management of portal hypertension--primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND

Variceal bleeding is a life-threatening complication of liver cirrhosis with a high probability of recurrence. Treatment to prevent first bleeding or rebleeding is mandatory.

AIM

To provide an overview of the current knowledge on the best evidence-based therapeutic options to prevent first or recurrent bleeding from oesophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

For the preparation of this narrative review, we sought to analyse randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and side effects of pharmacological or endoscopic therapy for the primary and secondary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding.

RESULTS

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and nonselective beta-blockers are both effective in preventing first bleeding. Until more long-term data are available, nonselective beta-blockers should be the first treatment option because of less severe side effects. EBL is an alternative when beta-blockers are contraindicated or not tolerated. Patient preference may also be considered. For prevention of rebleeding, nonselective beta-blockers (preferably in association with isosorbide-5-mononitrate) or EBL are both effective and good alternative treatments. A combination of both treatments may be the best alternative.

CONCLUSIONS

A great improvement in the prevention of variceal bleeding has emerged over the last years. However, further therapeutic options that combine higher efficacy, better tolerance and fewer side effects are needed.

The management of portal hypertension: rational basis, available treatments and future options

Variceal bleeding is the last step in a chain of events initiated by an increase in portal pressure, followed by the development and progressive dilation of varices until these finally rupture and bleed. This sequence of events might be prevented - and reversed - by achieving a sufficient decrease in portal pressure. A different approach is the use of local endoscopic treatments at the varices. This article reviews the rationale for the management of patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, the current recommendations for the prevention and treatment of variceal bleeding, and outlines the unsolved issues and the perspectives for the future opened by new research developments.

Primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding in cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is a common and severe complication of liver cirrhosis. The risk of bleeding increases with the size of varices, red wheal marks and disease severity. Noninvasive tests are not accurate enough for the diagnosis of varices, so all patients with cirrhosis should be screened by endoscopy. Nonselective beta-blockers (propranolol, nadolol) are indicated for primary prophylaxis in patients with medium/large varices, and for those with small varices and red signs or advanced liver failure (Child C). In such patients, beta-blockers have been shown to reduce the risk of bleeding from 25 to 15%. There is no evidence to support using beta-blockers with nitrates or spironolactone. In patients with contraindication or intolerance to beta-blockers, endoscopic band ligations are indicated.

Portal hypertension: pre-primary and primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

In liver cirrhosis, variceal bleeding is the last in a chain of events initiated by the increase in portal pressure (estimated in clinical practice by the hepatic venous pressure gradient). When hepatic venous pressure gradient goes above 10 mmHg the patient is at risk of developing varices, and when hepatic venous pressure gradient reaches 12 mmHg variceal bleeding might develop. Currently, there is not any effective therapy for the prevention of the development of varices. When varices are small, beta-adrenergic blockers might prevent the enlargement of the varices, and may reduce the risk of variceal bleeding. In patients with medium to large varices, beta-blockers are clearly effective in reducing the risk of variceal bleeding. Endoscopic band ligation might be more effective than beta-blockers, but available evidence is still very weak.

Future expectations in the prophylaxis of intestinal bleeding

Prophylaxis of gastrointestinal bleeding is attempted in widely varying situations. In NSAID-induced peptic ulcer, the advantage of selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors with regard to gastrointestinal damage has yet to be translated into an advantage in overall morbidity. Strategies for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding have been established. Therapy tailored to hepatic venous pressure gradient has the potential to achieve clinical relevance. Several methods have been developed to prevent postpolypectomy bleeding, but their optimal risk-tailored application has yet to be demonstrated. Although octreotide treatment seems to be beneficial in reducing the blood loss from angiodysplasias, controlled studies to determine its optimal use are awaited. Stress-ulcer prophylaxis is commonly applied in critically ill patients. Although data indicate that H2-receptor antagonists and omeprazole are effective in preventing clinically significant bleeding, evidence for an advantage with respect to length of hospital or intensive-care-unit stay, as well as mortality, is still lacking. Since there is misuse of acid-suppressing drugs on regular wards, in-house guidelines may offer the potential for saving costs and reducing inappropriate prescription.

Diagnosis and management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is defined as bleeding proximal to ligament of Treitz. Its clinical presentations are hematemesis, melena stool, or even fresh bleeding per rectum. This paper reviews the diagnosis and treatment of upper GI bleeding.

METHODS

Selective literature review.

RESULTS

Common causes of upper GI bleeding are peptic ulcer disease, bleeding from gastroesophageal varices, angiodysplasias, and Mallory-Weiss lesions. The most important diagnostic intervention is endoscopy, which allows therapeutic interventions if needed. Peptic ulcer disease is treated endoscopically with injection therapy and endoclips. Acute bleeding from oesophageal varices is treated by banding. Endoscopic treatment is accompanied by medical treatment with proton pump inhibitors for the treatment of peptic ulcer disease, and vasoactive drugs for the treatment of bleeding oesophageal varices.

DISCUSSION

Modern endoscopy affords good localization of the bleeding site and successful treatment for most patients with upper GI bleeding.

A pilot project examining the predicted preferences of patients and physicians in the primary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and nonselective beta-blockers (hereafter just called beta-blockers) are both effective for primary prophylaxis for variceal hemorrhage; however, the route of administration and side effects of these treatments are distinct. The objective of this study was to examine predicted preferences of patients and physicians for the primary prevention of variceal hemorrhage. Untreated patients with newly diagnosed esophageal varices and practicing gastroenterologists were enrolled in this study. Patients with contraindications to either EVL or beta-blockers were excluded. Predicted preferences for treatment were evaluated with an interactive computer task designed to elicit subjects' trade-offs related to the route of administration, risk of fatigue, sexual dysfunction, dysphagia, shortness of breath and/or hypotension, procedure-related bleeding, and perforation. Fifty-three patients and 61 physicians were enrolled. Thirty-four (64%) patients and 35 (57%) physicians preferred EVL over beta-blockers. Patients' predicted preferences were most strongly influenced by the risks of shortness of breath or hypotension, fatigue, and procedure-related bleeding, whereas physicians placed greater importance on procedure-related bleeding, sexual dysfunction, and perforation. Forty-eight patients were prescribed beta-blockers, two were not given prophylaxis, and three were lost to follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Predicted treatment preferences among both patients and physicians for primary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage vary significantly. Physicians in this study preferring EVL stated that they prescribe beta-blockers as first-line therapy in order to remain compliant with guidelines. Physicians should discuss both EVL and beta-blockers with patients requiring primary prophylaxis for variceal hemorrhage. Future guidelines should incorporate individual patient preferences.

Banding ligation versus beta-blockers as primary prophylaxis in esophageal varices: systematic review of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare banding ligation versus beta-blockers as primary prophylaxis in patients with esophageal varices and no previous bleeding.

METHODS

Randomized trials were identified through electronic databases, reference lists in relevant articles, and correspondence with experts. Three authors extracted data. Random effects meta-analysis and metaregression were performed. The reported allocation sequence generation and concealment were extracted as measures of bias control.

RESULTS

The initial searches identified 1,174 references. Sixteen trials were included. In 15 trials, patients had high-risk varices. Three trials reported adequate bias control. All trials reported mortality for banding ligation (116/573 patients) and beta-blockers (115/594 patients). Mortality in the two treatment groups was not significantly different in the trials with adequate bias control (relative risk 1.22, 95% CI 0.84-1.78) or unclear bias control (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75-1.39). Trials with adequate bias control found no significant difference in bleeding rates (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55-1.35). Trials with unclear bias control found that banding ligation significantly reduced bleeding (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41-0.77). Both treatments were associated with adverse events. In metaregression analyses, the estimated effect of ligation was significantly more positive if trials were published as abstracts. Likewise, the shorter the follow-up, the more positive the estimated effect of ligation.

CONCLUSIONS

Banding ligation and beta-blockers may be used as primary prophylaxis in high-risk esophageal varices. The estimated effect of banding ligation in some trials may be biased and was associated with the duration of follow-up. Further high-quality trials are still needed.

[Medical therapy of complications in liver cirrhosis]

Patients with liver cirrhosis bear a considerable risk of a variety of complications that involve virtually all organ systems. They can be addressed with a wide spectrum of drugs for acute interventions as well as for prophylactic purposes. At the same time treatment of the underlying disease, the identification and treatment of triggering factors and the possibility of liver transplantation should be kept in mind.

Preventing first variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is still a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension responsible for an appreciable rate of morbidity and mortality. The most appropriate treatment approach, whether drugs (nonselective beta-blockers) or endoscopic (variceal band ligation) therapy, to prevent the initial bleed, or primary prophylaxis, is an issue of controversy. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials indicates that banding seems to be somehow slightly more effective than beta-blockers at preventing a first bleeding episode, but this does not translate to improved survival. The firmness of this conclusion is, in addition, diminished by the small sample size and short follow-up of most studies. Moreover, adverse events due to banding are more severe than those associated with beta-blockers. Thus, beta-blockers remain as first-line therapy in patients with cirrhosis and large esophageal varices. Prophylactic therapy with beta-blockers can be considered in patients with small varices, especially in those with red signs or Child class C liver disease. The available evidence does not support the idea that organic nitrates improve the efficacy of beta-blockers in primary prophylaxis. The method used to establish the dose of beta-blockers and check its effect on hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) has also been disputed. An attractive strategy is to measure the HVPG response to beta-blockers as a guide to primary prophylaxis, with the aim of switching to another therapy, that is, band ligation, in HVPG nonresponders. However, no study has yet demonstrated that banding as rescue therapy in nonresponders lowers the risk of first bleeding and improves survival.

Variceal band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prevention of variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Variceal band ligation (VBL) can reduce the rate of the first variceal by 45-52% compared with beta-blockers (BBs). We performed an updated meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials published as full papers, comparing VBL with BB for primary prevention.

METHODS

Relative risk (RR) was computed using a random effects model. Sensitivity analysis was performed using a fixed effects model. Publication bias was also assessed using funnel plots and the rank correlation test.

RESULTS

In total, 734 patients were studied (356, VBL; 378, BB). The pooled RR favoured VBL for first variceal bleed [0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.43-0.92] with number needed to treat being 13 (95% CI, 7-33), and for adverse events resulting in treatment withdrawal (0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.47) with the corresponding number needed to treat being 10 (95% CI, 6-25). Banding-related bleeding occurred in six patients (fatal in two). No difference was seen in bleeding-related deaths (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.38-1.32), or overall mortality (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.86-1.38). No significant heterogeneity or publication bias was present, and outcomes remained robust after sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

VBL was superior to BB in preventing the first variceal bleed, with fewer adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation. Careful attention to technique and patient selection are important to minimize iatrogenic complications with VBL. VBL has a role in patients with poor drug compliance, or tolerance, and in those who bleed on BB therapy.

A randomized study comparing ligation with propranolol for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in candidates for liver transplantation

Whether beta-blockers (BB) or banding is the best therapy for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding is subject to debate. A randomized comparison between the 2 treatments was performed in candidates for liver transplantation (LT). A total of 62 patients with Child-Turcotte-Pugh B-C cirrhosis and high risk varices received propranolol (31) or variceal banding (31). The primary endpoint was variceal bleeding. There were 2 variceal hemorrhages (6.5%) in the banding group, related to postbanding ulcers, and 3 (9.7%) in the propranolol group (P = not significant [n.s.]). Deaths and bleeding related deaths were 3 and 1 for banding and 3 and 2 for BB, respectively (P = n.s.). A total of 14 patients underwent LT in the banding group and 10 in the propranolol group (P = n.s.). Adverse events were 2 postbanding ulcer bleedings in ligated patients (1 fatal) and 5 were intolerant to propranolol (P = n.s.). Mean costs per patient were higher with banding than with propranolol treatment (4,289 +/- 285 vs. 1,425 +/- 460 U.S. dollars, P < 0.001). In conclusion, propranolol and banding are similarly effective in reducing the incidence of variceal bleeding in candidates for LT, but ligation can be complicated by fatal bleeding and is more expensive. Our results suggest that banding should not be utilized as primary prophylaxis in transplant candidates who can be treated with BB.