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

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.

Pathophysiology of portal hypertension and its clinical links

Portal hypertension is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with liver cirrhosis. Intrahepatic vascular resistance due to architectural distortion and intrahepatic vasoconstriction, increased portal blood flow due to splanchnic vasodilatation, and development of collateral circulation have been considered as major factors for the development of portal hypertension. Recently, sinusoidal remodeling and angiogenesis have been focused as potential etiologic factors and various researchers have tried to improve portal hypertension by modulating these new targets. This article reviews potential new treatments in the context of portal hypertension pathophysiology concepts.

Managing varices: drugs, bands, and shunts

Drugs, bands, and shunts have all been used in the treatment of varices and variceal hemorrhage and have resulted in improved outcomes. However, the specific use of each of these therapies depends on the setting (primary or secondary prophylaxis, treatment of AVH) and on patient characteristics. The indications for each are summarized in Table 4.

Complications and outcomes in chronic liver disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic liver disease (CLD) causes significant morbidity and mortality, mainly due to complications [hepatic encephalopathy, ascites, hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) and esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH)]. Studies of the complications, management and outcomes in patients with CLD over the last 18 months are reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Predictors of response to lactulose therapy in hepatic encephalopathy have been reported, along with the effect of minimal hepatic encephalopathy on driving. Rifaximin was found to lead to better maintenance of remission and decreased readmission rates in patients with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. Satavaptan (a vasopressin receptor antagonist) was investigated for treatment of refractory ascites and appeared to be effective, but this compound is not currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Patients with refractory ascites taking propranolol were found to have poorer outcomes than those not taking propranolol. Terlipressin currently appears to be the best medical therapy available for patients with type 1 HRS; the addition with albumin to terlipressin appeared to decrease mortality in patients with type 1 HRS. In primary prophylaxis of EVH, carvedilol was found to reduce the rate of initial bleeding compared with band ligation. Early transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts placed in highly selected patients with acute EVH and a high risk of endoscopic failure decreased long-term mortality. In patients with gastric varices, primary prophylaxis with cyanoacrylate may decrease the probability of gastric variceal hemorrhage compared with nonselective beta-blockers.

SUMMARY

Refinement in clinical management strategies for patients with cirrhosis and its complications appear to continue to contribute to improved patient outcomes.

Primary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage in children with portal hypertension: a framework for future research

Nonselective β-blocker therapy and endoscopic variceal ligation reduce the incidence of variceal hemorrhage in cirrhotic adults, but their use in children is controversial. There are no evidence-based recommendations for the prophylactic management of children at risk of variceal hemorrhage due to the lack of appropriate randomized controlled trials. In a recent gathering of experts at the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases annual meeting, significant challenges were identified in attempting to design and implement a clinical trial of primary prophylaxis in children using either of these therapies. These challenges render such a trial unfeasible, primarily due to the large sample size required, inadequate knowledge of appropriate dosing of β-blockers, and difficulty in recruiting to a trial of endoscopic variceal ligation. Pediatric research should focus on addressing questions of natural history and diagnosis of varices, prediction of variceal bleeding, optimal approaches to β-blocker and ligation therapy, and alternative study designs to explore therapeutic efficacy in children.

Carvedilol in the treatment of portal hypertension

Variceal bleeding is a major event in the natural history of end-stage liver disease with a subsequent high mortality rate. Non-selective β-blockers are currently the drugs of choice for preventing first variceal bleeding. Endoscopic rubber band ligation of high risk varices features as a first line option if cirrhotic patients cannot tolerate β-blockers. Despite adequate β-blockade, some patients may still present with variceal bleeding. The effect of carvedilol, a non-selective β and α-1 receptor-blocker, on lowering portal pressure has been investigated in several clinical trials and found to be superior to propranolol in both acute and chronic hemodynamic studies. Recently, carvedilol has also been compared with band ligation for primary prophylaxis against variceal bleeding with equivalent results to band ligation. Patient tolerance to carvedilol in advanced liver disease remains a source of concern. This review examines the place of carvedilol as an alternative to the currently recommended pharmacological therapy in prophylaxis against variceal bleeding.

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.

Portal hypertension: diagnosis and management with particular reference to variceal hemorrhage

Portal hypertension is a cause a major luminal gut hemorrhage, most often from esophageal varices. Identification of those with varices, and administration of therapies to reduce the likelihood of initial bleeding improve patient outcomes. Beta blocker therapy or variceal band ligation are most often used in this context. Management of acute variceal hemorrhage (including routine use of antibiotics) is followed by initiating strategies to reduce the frequency of recurrent bleeding. Mortality from portal hypertensive bleeding has been diminished by use of these interventions.

Primary prevention of variceal hemorrhage

Variceal hemorrhage is one of the leading causes of death in patients with cirrhosis, with the 6-week mortality after each episode ranging from 15% to 20%. The two main strategies for primary prevention of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis and varices are the administration of nonselective β-blockers or the obliteration of varices with use of endoscopic band ligation. In this review, we present and critically review the latest data on primary prevention of variceal hemorrhage. We advocate that nonselective β-blockers should be the first line therapy, and band ligation should be offered only in cases of intolerance or side effects. We also explore potential future therapies based on preliminary experimental and clinical data.

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.

[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.

Clinical pharmacology of portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is an increase in pressure in the portal vein and its tributaries. It is defined as a portal pressure gradient (the difference in pressure between the portal vein and the hepatic veins) greater than 5 mm Hg. Although this gradient defines portal hypertension, a gradient of 10 mm Hg or greater defines clinically significant portal hypertension, because this pressure gradient predicts the development of varices, decompensation of cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The most direct consequence of portal hypertension is the development of gastroesophageal varices that may rupture and lead to the development of variceal hemorrhage. This article reviews the pathophysiologic bases of the different pharmacologic treatments for portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis and places them in the context of the natural history of varices and variceal hemorrhage.

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.

The role of carvedilol in the management of portal hypertension

Carvedilol is a potent noncardioselective beta-blocker, with weak vasodilating properties because of alpha 1 blockade. A reduction in both intrahepatic and portocollateral resistance contribute to enhanced effects on portal pressure. There are 10 published hemodynamic studies involving 168 patients investigating the role of carvedilol in portal hypertension. A reduction in the hepatic venous pressure gradient of up to 43% (range 10-43%) has been reported, particularly after chronic administration. However, tolerability at doses greater than 12.5 mg/day was comprised because of a fall in mean arterial pressure (MAP), particularly in ascitic patients. Carvedilol was more effective than propranolol in reducing hepatic venous pressure gradient in two of three studies, albeit with a greater decrease in MAP. One study showed deterioration of pre-existing ascites with carvedilol. The addition of nitrates to propranolol was less effective than carvedilol monotherapy in another study. A large multicentre, randomized controlled trial comparing carvedilol with variceal band ligation for the prevention of variceal bleeding has been published. Carvedilol resulted in fewer episodes of bleeding, although there was no difference in survival. Carvedilol was well tolerated. Carvedilol is a promising agent, and seems to be more effective than propranolol in hemodynamic studies. The efficacy in primary prevention of variceal bleeding suggests that carvedilol has a role in the management of clinically significant portal hypertension.

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.

Compliance with practice guidelines and risk of a first esophageal variceal hemorrhage in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH) is a serious complication of cirrhosis, with 20% mortality per episode. The 2007 American Association for the Study of Liver Disease and American College of Gastroenterology practice guidelines regarding esophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis recommend screening and intervention to prevent EVH. We assessed practice guideline compliance and its impact on the rate of first EVH.

METHODS

An institutional review board-approved retrospective chart review was conducted on a random sample of adult patients newly evaluated for cirrhosis at the Cleveland Clinic from 2003 to 2006 (n = 179). Exclusion criteria were a previous diagnosis of esophageal varices or EVH and/or treatment with beta-adrenergic antagonists. Patients were followed for 23 months (range, 9-38 months). Conformity with practice guidelines and subsequent bleeding rates were determined. Observed bleeding rates were compared to the North Italian Endoscopy Club (NIEC) model.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 94% had a screening endoscopy, 80% within 6 months of the initial visit. Varices were present in 50% of the patients; 68% of all patients screened and 91% with large varices received a practice guideline-recommended treatment. Twelve patients (7%) had an episode of EVH; 82% of subjects without bleeding had their screening endoscopy within 6 months versus 50% of those with bleeding (P = .016). Actuarial likelihood of bleeding at 2 years was 13% versus 27% predicted by the NIEC model (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Compliance with practice guideline recommendations is associated with reduction in first EVH in the first 2 years.

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.

Medical management of variceal hemorrhage

Gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage is a major complication of portal hypertension in 50% to 60% of patients with liver cirrhosis and is a frequent cause of mortality in these patients. The prevalence of variceal hemorrhage is approximately 5% to 15% yearly, and early variceal rebleeding has a rate of occurrence of 30% to 40% within the first 6 weeks. More than 50% of patients who survive after the first bleeding episode will experience recurrent bleeding within 1 year. Management of gastroesophageal varices should include prevention of initial and recurrent bleeding episodes and control of active hemorrhage. Therapies used in the management of gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage may include pharmacologic therapy (vasoactive agents, nonselective b-blockers, and antibiotic prophylaxis), endoscopic therapy, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, and shunt surgery. This article focuses primarily on pharmacologic management of acute variceal hemorrhage.

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.