Hepatic venous pressure gradient and prognosis in patients with acute variceal bleeding treated with pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy

Higher free serum cortisol is associated with worse survival in acute variceal bleeding because of cirrhosis: a prospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency has been reported in acute variceal bleeding (AVB). In cirrhosis, free serum cortisol (FC) is considered optimal to assess adrenal function. Salivary cortisol (SC) is considered a surrogate for FC. We evaluated FC and its prognostic role in AVB.

METHODS

Total serum cortisol, SC, cortisol-binding globulin, and FC (Coolens' formula) were evaluated in AVB (n=38) and in stable cirrhosis (CC) (n=31). A Cox proportional hazards model was evaluated for 6-week survival.

RESULTS

In AVB, the median FC and SC levels were higher with worse liver dysfunction [Child-Pugh (CP) A/B/C: 1.59/2.62/3.26 μg/dl, P=0.019; CPA/B/C: 0.48/0.897/1.81 μg/ml, P<0.001, respectively]. In AVB compared with CC, median total serum cortisol: 24.3 versus 11.6 μg/dl (P<0.001), SC: 0.86 versus 0.407 μg/ml (P<0.001); FC 2.4 versus 0.57 μg/dl (P<0.001). In AVB, 5-day rebleeding was 10.5%, and 6-week and total mortality were 21.1 and 23.7%, respectively. Independent associations with 6-week mortality in AVB were FC at least 3.2 μg/dl (P<0.001), hepatocellular carcinoma (P<0.001), CPC (P<0.001), and early rebleeding (P<0.001). Among patients with normal cortisol-binding globulin (n=14) and albumin (n=31), the factors were hepatocellular carcinoma (P=0.003), CP (P=0.003), and FC (P=0.036). SC was also found to be an independent predictor of 6-week mortality (P<0.001). Area under the curve of FC for predicting 6-week mortality was 0.79.

CONCLUSION

Higher FC is present in cirrhosis with AVB compared with CC and is associated independently with bleeding-related mortality. However, whether high FC solely indicates the severity of illness or whether there is significant adrenal insufficiency cannot be discerned.

A risk scoring system to predict in-hospital mortality in patients with cirrhosis presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

GOALS

We aimed to develop a simple and practical risk scoring system to predict in-hospital mortality in cirrhotics presenting with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

STUDY

Extensive clinical data were captured in patients with documented cirrhosis who underwent endoscopic evaluation for upper GI bleeding between January 1, 2003 and June 30, 2011 at Parkland Memorial Hospital. Predictors of mortality were identified by multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 884 patients with cirrhosis admitted for upper GI bleeding were identified; 809 patients survived and 75 died (8.4%). The etiology of bleeding was similar in both groups, with bleeding attributed to esophageal varices in 59% of survivors and 60% of non-survivors (ulcer disease and other etiologies of bleeding accounted for the other causes of bleeding). Mortality was 8.6% and 8.3% in patients with variceal bleeding and nonvariceal bleeding, respectively. While survivors and those who died were similarly matched with regard to gender, age, ethnicity and etiology of cirrhosis, patients who died had lower systolic blood pressures, higher pulse rates and lower mean arterial pressures at admission than patients who survived. Non-survivors were more likely to be Childs C (61% vs. 19%, P<0.001). Multivariate regression analysis identified the following 4 predictors of in-hospital mortality: use of vasoactive pressors, number of packed red blood cells transfused, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, and serum albumin. A receiver operating characteristic curve including these 4 variables yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of 0.94 (95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.98). Classification and Regression Tree analysis yielded similar results, identifying vasoactive pressors and then MELD>21 as the most important decision nodes for predicting death. By comparison, using the Rockall scoring system in the same patients, the AUROC curve was 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.76 and the comparison of the University of Texas Southwestern model to the Rockall model revealed P<0.0001). A validation set comprised of 150 unique admissions between July 1, 2011 and July 31, 2012, had an AUROC of 0.92, and the outcomes of 97% of the subjects in this set were accurately predicted by the risk score model.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of vasoactive agents, packed red blood cell transfusion, albumin, and MELD score were highly predictive of in-hospital mortality in cirrhotics presenting with upper GI bleeding. These variables were used to formulate a clinical risk scoring system for in-hospital mortality, which is available at: http://medweb.musc.edu/LogisticModelPredictor.

Management of variceal and nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis

Acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage remains the most common medical emergency managed by gastroenterologists. Causes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in patients with liver cirrhosis can be grouped into two categories: the first includes lesions that arise by virtue of portal hypertension, namely gastroesophageal varices and portal hypertensive gastropathy; and the second includes lesions seen in the general population (peptic ulcer, erosive gastritis, reflux esophagitis, Mallory-Weiss syndrome, tumors, etc.). Emergency upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is the standard procedure recommended for both diagnosis and treatment of UGIB. The endoscopic treatment of choice for esophageal variceal bleeding is band ligation of varices. Bleeding from gastric varices is treated by injection with cyanoacrylate. Treatment with vasoactive drugs as well as antibiotic treatment is started before or at the same time as endoscopy. Bleeding from portal hypertensive gastropathy is less frequent, usually chronic and treatment options include β-blocker therapy, injection therapy and interventional radiology. The standard of care of UGIB in patients with cirrhosis includes careful resuscitation, preferably in an intensive care setting, medical and endoscopic therapy, early consideration for placement of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and, sometimes, surgical therapy or hepatic transplant.

Management of acute variceal bleeding

Acute variceal bleeding could be a fatal complication in patients with liver cirrhosis. In patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis accompanied by ascites or hepatic encephalopathy, acute variceal bleeding is associated with a high mortality rate. Therefore, timely endoscopic hemostasis and prevention of relapse of bleeding are most important. The treatment goals for acute variceal bleeding are to correct hypovolemia; achieve rapid hemostasis; and prevent early rebleeding, complications related to bleeding, and deterioration of liver function. If variceal bleeding is suspected, treatment with vasopressors and antibiotics should be initiated immediately on arrival to the hospital. Furthermore, to obtain hemodynamic stability, the hemoglobin level should be maintained at >8 g/dL, systolic blood pressure >90 to 100 mm Hg, heart rate <100/min, and the central venous pressure from 1 to 5 mm Hg. When the patient becomes hemodynamically stable, hemostasis should be achieved by performing endoscopy as soon as possible. For esophageal variceal bleeding, endoscopic variceal ligation is usually performed, and for gastric variceal bleeding, endoscopic variceal obturation is performed primarily. If it is considered difficult to achieve hemostasis through endoscopy, salvage therapy may be carried out while keeping the patient hemodynamically stable.

Hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement before TIPS for acute variceal bleeding

Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is an independent predictor of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis. After pharmacological and/or endoscopic therapy, the use of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) may be necessary in HVPG non-responders, but not in responders. Thus, HVPG measurement may be incorporated into the treatment algorithm for acute variceal bleeding, which further identifies the candidates that should undergo early insertion of TIPS or maintain the traditional pharmacological and/or endoscopic therapy. The potential benefits are to reduce the cost and prevent TIPS-related complications.

Acute variceal haemorrhage in the United Kingdom: patient characteristics, management and outcomes in a nationwide audit

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in treatment, acute variceal haemorrhage remains life-threatening.

AIM

To describe contemporary characteristics, management and outcomes of patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal haemorrhage and risk factors for rebleeding and mortality.

METHODS

Multi-centre clinical audit conducted in 212 UK hospitals.

RESULTS

In 526 cases of acute variceal haemorrhage, 66% underwent endoscopy within 24h with 64% (n=339) receiving endoscopic therapy. Prior to endoscopy, 57% (n=299) received proton pump inhibitors, 44% (n=232) vasopressors and 27% (n=144) antibiotics. 73% (n=386) received red cell transfusion, 35% (n=184) fresh frozen plasma and 14% (n=76) platelets, with widely varying transfusion thresholds. 26% (n=135) experienced further bleeding and 15% (n=80) died by day 30. The Model for End Stage Liver Disease score was the best predictor of mortality (area under the receiver operating curve=0.74, P<0.001). Neither the clinical nor full Rockall scores were useful predictors of outcome. Coagulopathy was strongly associated with rebleeding (odds ratio 2.23, 95% CI 1.22-4.07, P=0.01, up to day 30) and mortality (odds ratio 3.06, 95% CI 1.29-7.26, P=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Although mortality has improved following acute variceal haemorrhage, rebleeding rates remain appreciably high. There are notable deficiencies in the use of vasopressors and endoscopic therapy. More work is needed to understand the optimum transfusion strategies. Better risk stratification tools are required to identify patients needing more intensive support.

Saline-enhanced ultrasonography: prediction of X-ray appearance of hepatic venography in patients with cirrhosis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy of saline-enhanced ultrasound (US) in predicting the X-ray appearance of hepatic venography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective study consisted of 50 cirrhosis patients (31 males and 19 females; mean age, 64.2±11.1 years). US patterns in the liver, after injection of agitated saline via balloon-occluded catheter, were evaluated with respect to the findings of CO2-enhanced hepatic venogram.

RESULTS

US demonstrated two patterns: type I showing positive parenchymal enhancement (40 patients) and type II showing negative parenchymal enhancement with detection of hepatic vein (10 patients). There were also two patterns shown by hepatic venography: type A showing retrograde detection of intrahepatic portal vein (41 patients) and type B showing hepatic venous enhancement via intrahepatic venous-venous communications with no detection of intrahepatic portal vein (9 patients). All patients with type I showed retrograde detection of intrahepatic portal vein via hepatic sinusoid on X-ray venograms (type A). Of the 10 patients with type II, nine showed type B and one showed type A. Sensitivity and specificity of type I US pattern to predict the detection of intrahepatic portal vein on the venogram were 100% and 90%, respectively. There was no significant difference in hepatic venous pressure gradient or wedged hepatic venous pressure between patients with type I and type II.

CONCLUSIONS

Saline-enhanced US is effective in predicting the findings of hepatic venogram. As type II strongly suggests the shunt-modified venogram, image taking in these cases would be superfluous with the added advantage of avoiding unnecessary radiation exposure.

Management of acute variceal bleeding

Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is the most common cause of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in patients with cirrhosis. Advances in the management of AVB have resulted in decreased mortality. To minimize mortality, a multidisciplinary approach addressing airway safety, prompt judicious volume resuscitation, vasoactive and antimicrobial pharmacotherapy, and early endoscopy to obliterate varices is necessary. Placement of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has been used as rescue therapy for patients failing initial attempts at hemostasis. Patients who have a high likelihood of failing initial attempts at hemostasis may benefit from a more aggressive approach using TIPS earlier in their management.

Hepatic venous pressure gradient: clinical use in chronic liver disease

Portal hypertension is a severe consequence of chronic liver diseases and is responsible for the main clinical complications of liver cirrhosis. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement is the best available method to evaluate the presence and severity of portal hypertension. Clinically significant portal hypertension is defined as an increase in HVPG to >10 mmHg. In this condition, the complications of portal hypertension might begin to appear. HVPG measurement is increasingly used in the clinical fields, and the HVPG is a robust surrogate marker in many clinical applications such as diagnosis, risk stratification, identification of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who are candidates for liver resection, monitoring of the efficacy of medical treatment, and assessment of progression of portal hypertension. Patients who had a reduction in HVPG of ≥ 20% or to ≤ 12 mmHg in response to drug therapy are defined as responders. Responders have a markedly decreased risk of bleeding/rebleeding, ascites, and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, which results in improved survival. This review provides clinical use of HVPG measurement in the field of liver disease.

Hepatic venous pressure gradient: clinical use in chronic liver disease

Portal hypertension is a severe consequence of chronic liver diseases and is responsible for the main clinical complications of liver cirrhosis. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement is the best available method to evaluate the presence and severity of portal hypertension. Clinically significant portal hypertension is defined as an increase in HVPG to >10 mmHg. In this condition, the complications of portal hypertension might begin to appear. HVPG measurement is increasingly used in the clinical fields, and the HVPG is a robust surrogate marker in many clinical applications such as diagnosis, risk stratification, identification of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who are candidates for liver resection, monitoring of the efficacy of medical treatment, and assessment of progression of portal hypertension. Patients who had a reduction in HVPG of ≥ 20% or to ≤ 12 mmHg in response to drug therapy are defined as responders. Responders have a markedly decreased risk of bleeding/rebleeding, ascites, and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, which results in improved survival. This review provides clinical use of HVPG measurement in the field of liver disease.

Current Management Strategies for Acute Esophageal Variceal Hemorrhage

Acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage is one of the clinical events that define decompensated cirrhosis and is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Although recent treatment strategies have led to improved outcomes, variceal hemorrhage still carries a 6-week mortality rate of 15-20%. Current standards in its treatment include antibiotic prophylaxis, infusion of a vasoactive drug and endoscopic variceal ligation. The placement of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is considered for patients that have treatment failure or recurrent bleeding. Recurrent hemorrhage is prevented with the combination of a non-selective beta-blocker and endoscopic variceal ligation. These recommendations however assume that all patients with cirrhosis are equal. Based on a review of recent evidence, a strategy in which patients are stratified by Child class, the main predictor of outcomes, is proposed.

Worldwide practices for pharmacologic therapy in esophageal variceal hemorrhage

OBJECTIVE

Pharmacologic therapy (PT) for patients with esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH) may improve outcomes. The aim of this article is to assess the current and potential future use of PT in cirrhotic patients with EVH.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We validated a 13-question survey about PT and physician preferences for specific therapies in cirrhotics with EVH; 2349 randomly selected Gastroenterology and Hepatology physicians worldwide were surveyed. The survey addressed institutional location, octreotide or terlipressin use and preference, PT prior to endoscopy, and future plans for terlipressin use, if not already instituted.

RESULTS

Of those surveyed, 337 (14%) email addresses were nonfunctioning. Of the remaining 2012 surveyed, 371 (18%) responses were collected. Nearly two-thirds of physicians preferred to use PT prior to endoscopic intervention (p < 0.001). Nearly 70% of respondents only had octreotide available, while 6% had only terlipressin. Of the 24% having both octreotide and terlipressin available, 55% preferred terlipressin compared to 38% who preferred octreotide (p < 0.001). Of those physicians currently not using terlipressin because of its unavailability, 93% would be willing to use it if it were readily available.

CONCLUSIONS

Of physicians with both terlipressin and octreotide available for treatment of EVH in cirrhotics, most prefer terlipressin, even if currently unavailable.

A MELD-based model to determine risk of mortality among patients with acute variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients with cirrhosis with acute variceal bleeding (AVB) have high mortality rates (15%-20%). Previously described models are seldom used to determine prognoses of these patients, partially because they have not been validated externally and because they include subjective variables, such as bleeding during endoscopy and Child-Pugh score, which are evaluated inconsistently. We aimed to improve determination of risk for patients with AVB.

METHODS

We analyzed data collected from 178 patients with cirrhosis (Child-Pugh scores of A, B, and C: 15%, 57%, and 28%, respectively) and esophageal AVB who received standard therapy from 2007 through 2010. We tested the performance (discrimination and calibration) of previously described models, including the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), and developed a new MELD calibration to predict the mortality of patients within 6 weeks of presentation with AVB. MELD-based predictions were validated in cohorts of patients from Canada (n = 240) and Spain (n = 221).

RESULTS

Among study subjects, the 6-week mortality rate was 16%. MELD was the best model in terms of discrimination; it was recalibrated to predict the 6-week mortality rate with logistic regression (logit, -5.312 + 0.207 • MELD; bootstrapped R(2), 0.3295). MELD values of 19 or greater predicted 20% or greater mortality, whereas MELD scores less than 11 predicted less than 5% mortality. The model performed well for patients from Canada at all risk levels. In the Spanish validation set, in which all patients were treated with banding ligation, MELD predictions were accurate up to the 20% risk threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a MELD-based model that accurately predicts mortality among patients with AVB, based on objective variables available at admission. This model could be useful to evaluate the efficacy of new therapies and stratify patients in randomized trials.

Effects of inferior mesenteric vein flow in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) is detected in more than 90% of computed tomography images. Little is known about the hemodynamic features of IMV as a collateral vessel in portal hypertension, or its effects in clinical presentation and outcome. We investigated the roles of the IMV in portal hemodynamics, clinical presentation, and outcomes of patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of 467 patients with cirrhosis (274 men; age, 64.6 ± 10.9 y). We assessed hemodynamics in the IMV using Doppler sonography and compared these data with patients' clinical presentation and patient outcome.

RESULTS

IMV was detected in 94 patients (20.1%); 51 patients had hepatopetal flow, 33 patients had hepatofugal flow, and 10 patients had to-and-fro flow. Those with hepatofugal flow had a significantly greater number of ascites than those with hepatopetal flow, higher Child classification (P = .004), and a higher incidence of decompensated liver (51.5% vs 27.5%; P = .015) and rectal varices (56.3% vs 13.3%; P = .013). The incidence of gastroesophageal varices was lower among those with hepatofugal flow (51.5%; P = .005) or to-and-fro flow (40%; P = .008) than those with hepatopetal flow (80.4%). IMV had similar effects after adjustment for liver function. There were no differences in the cumulative rates of survival during the median 17.2 months of follow-up evaluation, when the patients with and without IMV were stratified by Child classification.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with cirrhosis, hepatofugal flow of the IMV appears to increase the risk of ascites and liver decompensation but reduce the risk for gastroesophageal varices. Although IMV is associated with reduced liver function, it does not affect survival.

Rebleeding prophylaxis improves outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. A multicenter case-control study

Outcome of variceal bleeding (VB) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is unknown. We compared outcomes after VB in patients with and without HCC. All patients with HCC and esophageal VB admitted between 2007 and 2010 were included. Follow-up was prolonged until death, transplantation, or June 2011. For each patient with HCC, a patient without HCC matched by age and Child-Pugh class was selected. A total of 292 patients were included, 146 with HCC (Barcelona Classification of Liver Cancer class 0-3 patients, A [in 25], B [in 29], C [in 45], and D [in 41]) and 146 without HCC. No differences were observed regarding previous use of prophylaxis, clinical presentation, endoscopic findings, and initial endoscopic treatment. Five-day failure was similar (25% in HCC versus 18% in non-HCC; P = 0.257). HCC patients had greater 6-week rebleeding rate (16 versus 7%, respectively; P = 0.025) and 6-week mortality (30% versus 15%; P = 0.003). Fewer patients with HCC received secondary prophylaxis after bleeding (77% versus 89%; P = 0.009), and standard combination therapy was used less frequently (58% versus 70%; P = 0.079). Secondary prophylaxis failure was more frequent (50% versus 31%; P = 0.001) and survival significantly shorter in patients with HCC (median survival: 5 months versus greater than 38 months in patients without HCC; P < 0.001). Lack of prophylaxis increased rebleeding and mortality. On multivariate analysis Child-Pugh score, presence of HCC, portal vein thrombosis, and lack of secondary prophylaxis were predictors of death.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HCC and VB have worse prognosis than patients with VB without HCC. Secondary prophylaxis offers survival benefit in HCC patients.

Management and prognosis of acute esophageal variceal bleeding: Analysis of 300 cases

AIM: To analyze the treatment, management duration and prognosis of acute esophageal variceal bleeding and to identify predictive factors for treatment failure.

METHODS: Clinical data for 300 patients with acute esophageal variceal bleeding treated at our hospital from January 2008 to January 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. Bleeding control was analyzed ≤ 2 h, > 2 h but ≤ 6 h, > 6 h but ≤ 5 d, or ≥ 5 d after treatment to find the relationship between bleeding control time and mortality. The effective rate and mortality were compared between patients treated with simple drugs and those treated with drugs combined with endoscopic therapy. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictive factors for treatment failure.

RESULTS: The number of patients having ineffective bleeding management was 75, 25 and 27 in the ≤ 2 h, >2 h but ≤ 6 h, and >6 h but ≤ 5 d groups, respectively, and the number of dead patients was 1, 3 and 16, respectively. The percentage of patients having ineffective bleeding management was higher in the ≤ 2 h group. The effective rate of drug therapy in management of bleeding was 57.67% (173/300), and the mortality was 9.67% (29/300). The effective rate of tissue adhesive injection or ligation combined with endoscopic therapy in controlling bleeding in patients after ineffective drug therapy was 90.00% (27/30), and the mortality was 0. Logistic regression analysis showed that admission systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg, increased total bilirubin, high liver function classification, and ascites were predictive factors for treatment failure.

CONCLUSION: Ascites, increased total bilirubin, admission systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg, and high Child-Pugh classification can predict treatment failure in patients with acute esophageal variceal bleeding. Invalid bleeding control is more common during ≤ 2 h after treatment. Mortality increases with time. If bleeding can not be controlled effectively 2 h after treatment, treatment conversion should be considered. Drugs in combination with endoscopic therapy are associated with higher efficacy and lower mortality in controlling bleeding.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Patients with Portal Hypertension

Gastrointestinal bleeding related to portal hypertension is a serious complication in patients with liver cirrhosis. Most patients bleed from esophageal or gastric varices, but bleeding from ectopic varices or portal hypertensive gastropathy is also possible. The management of acute bleeding has changed over the last years. Patients are managed with a combination of endoscopic and pharmacologic treatment. The endoscopic treatment of choice for esophageal variceal bleeding is variceal band ligation. Bleeding from gastric varices is treated by injection with cyanoacrylate. Treatment with vasoactive drugs as well as antibiotic treatment is started before or at the time point of endoscopy. The first-line treatment for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding is nonselective beta blockers. Pharmacologic therapy is recommended for most patients; band ligation is an alternative in patients with contraindications for or intolerability of beta blockers. Treatment options for secondary prophylaxis include variceal band ligation, beta blockers, a combination of nitrates and beta blockers, and combination of band ligation and pharmacologic treatment. A clear superiority of one treatment over the other has not been shown. Bleeding from portal hypertensive gastropathy or ectopic varices is less common. Treatment options include beta blocker therapy, injection therapy, and interventional radiology.

Natural history of cirrhosis

Significant strides have been made in the last few years in advancing our knowledge of the natural history of cirrhosis. These include (1) a better understanding of prognosis in compensated and decompensated cirrhosis, (2) improved estimates of the natural course of variceal bleeding in patients receiving standard of care therapy, (3) recognition of renal failure and infection as important determinants of mortality in the clinic course, (4) realization of the importance of hepatic venous pressure gradient as a marker of prognosis, progression, and treatment response, and (5) evolution of noninvasive studies of liver stiffness as potential predictors of decompensation. Further studies identifying cirrhotics at highest risk of transitioning from a compensated state to a decompensated state will be important in order to alter the natural history of cirrhosis.

Natural history of cirrhosis

Significant strides have been made in the last few years in advancing our knowledge of the natural history of cirrhosis. These include (1) a better understanding of prognosis in compensated and decompensated cirrhosis, (2) improved estimates of the natural course of variceal bleeding in patients receiving standard of care therapy, (3) recognition of renal failure and infection as important determinants of mortality in the clinic course, (4) realization of the importance of hepatic venous pressure gradient as a marker of prognosis, progression, and treatment response, and (5) evolution of noninvasive studies of liver stiffness as potential predictors of decompensation. Further studies identifying cirrhotics at highest risk of transitioning from a compensated state to a decompensated state will be important in order to alter the natural history of cirrhosis.

[Mexican consensus on portal hypertension]

The aim of the Mexican Consensus on Portal Hypertension was to develop documented guidelines to facilitate clinical practice when dealing with key events of the patient presenting with portal hypertension and variceal bleeding. The panel of experts was made up of Mexican gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and endoscopists, all distinguished professionals. The document analyzes themes of interest in the following modules: preprimary and primary prophylaxis, acute variceal hemorrhage, and secondary prophylaxis. The management of variceal bleeding has improved considerably in recent years. Current information indicates that the general management of the cirrhotic patient presenting with variceal bleeding should be carried out by a multidisciplinary team, with such an approach playing a major role in the final outcome. The combination of drug and endoscopic therapies is recommended for initial management; vasoactive drugs should be started as soon as variceal bleeding is suspected and maintained for 5 days. After the patient is stabilized, urgent diagnostic endoscopy should be carried out by a qualified endoscopist, who then performs the corresponding endoscopic variceal treatment. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be regarded as an integral part of treatment, started upon hospital admittance and continued for 5 days. If there is treatment failure, rescue therapies should be carried out immediately, taking into account that interventional radiology therapies are very effective in controlling refractory variceal bleeding. These guidelines have been developed for the purpose of achieving greater clinical efficacy and are based on the best evidence of portal hypertension that is presently available.

Prognostic value of hepatic venous pressure gradient in patients with compensated chronic hepatitis C-related cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is the main predictor of clinical decompensation in cirrhotic patients with compensated disease of any etiology without varices. However, the predictive factors of decompensation are not so well known in patients with hepatitis C-related compensated cirrhosis, in whom etiology-based therapy is difficult. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of decompensation in patients with compensated chronic hepatitis C (CHC)-related cirrhosis with and without esophageal varices (Baveno stages 1 and 2).

METHODS

The study population was a cohort of 145 of such consecutive patients who received hepatic hemodynamic study. All patients were similarly followed every 6 months. Through multivariate Cox regression and bootstrap analyses, a prognostic index (PI) was developed and tested in an external cohort (n = 38).

RESULTS

Forty-two patients (29%) suffered a first decompensation episode after a median follow-up of 27 months (2-110). Cox regression analysis identified HVPG (hazard ratio (HR) 1.11; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05-1.17) and albumin (HR 0.42; 95% CI: 0.22-0.82) as independent predictors of decompensation. Bootstrapping confirmed that HVPG (95% CI: 1.05-1.18) and albumin (95% CI: 0.12-0.74) were the most robust predictive variables. Using a cut-off level of 2.5, the PI [4 + (0.11 × HVPG - 0.8 × albumin)] was able to distinguish two populations of patients with very different risks of decompensation in both the exploratory and validation cohorts. A time-dependent ROC curve identified HVPG as the best predictive variable.

CONCLUSION

HVPG and albumin are independent predictors of clinical decompensation in patients with compensated CHC-related cirrhosis irrespective of the existence of varices.

Assessing portal hypertension in liver diseases

Portal hypertension is a common complication of chronic liver diseases and is responsible for most clinical consequences of cirrhosis, which represent the more frequent causes of death and liver transplantation in these patients. This review is aimed at clarifying the state-of-the art assessment of portal hypertension and at discussing recent developments in this field. Particular attention is paid to new noninvasive techniques that will be soon available for potential routine use.

Delayed endoscopy increases re-bleeding and mortality in patients with hematemesis and active esophageal variceal bleeding: a cohort study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Active bleeding is a poor prognostic indicator in patients with acute esophageal variceal bleeding. This study aimed at determining indicators of 6-week re-bleeding and mortality in patients with "active" esophageal variceal bleeding, particularly emphasizing the presenting symptoms and timing of endoscopy to define the treatment strategy.

METHODS

From July 2005 to December 2009, cirrhotic patients with endoscopy-proven active esophageal variceal bleeding were evaluated. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to determine the indicators of 6-week re-bleeding and mortality. Outcome comparisons were performed by Kaplan-Meier method and log rank test.

RESULTS

In 101 patients, the overall 6-week and 3-month re-bleeding rates were 25.7% (n=26) and 29.7% (n=30), respectively. The overall 6-week and 3-month mortality was 31.7% (n=32) and 38.6% (n=39), respectively. Door-to-endoscopy time (hr), MELD score, and portal vein thrombosis were indicators of 6-week re-bleeding, while hematemesis upon arrival, MELD score, and hepatocellular carcinoma were indicators of 6-week mortality. Overall mortality was poorer in hematemesis than in non-hematemesis patients (39.7% vs. 10.7%, p=0.007). In hematemesis patients, 6-week re-bleeding rate (18.9% vs. 38.9%, p=0.028) and mortality (27% vs. 52.8%, p=0.031) were lower in those with early (≤ 12 h) than delayed (>12h) endoscopy. In non-hematemesis patients, early and delayed endoscopy had no difference on 6-week re-bleeding rate (17.6% vs. 18.2%, p=0.944) and mortality (11.8% vs. 9.1%, p=0.861).

CONCLUSIONS

It is likely that early endoscopy (≤ 12 h) is associated with a better outcome in hematemesis patients, but a randomized trial with larger case numbers is required before making a firm conclusion.

The effectiveness of current acute variceal bleed treatments in unselected cirrhotic patients: refining short-term prognosis and risk factors

OBJECTIVES

The mortality from esophageal variceal hemorrhage in liver cirrhosis patients remains approximately 15-20%. Predictors of short-term outcomes, such as the hepatic venous pressure gradient, are often unavailable in the acute setting. Clinical variables seem to have a similar predictive performance, but some variables including active bleeding during endoscopy have not been reevaluated after the utilization of endoscopic banding as endoscopic procedure. In addition, patients with severe liver failure are often excluded from clinical trials. The aim of this study was to prospectively reevaluate the risk factors affecting a 5-day failure after acute variceal bleeding in unselected cirrhotic patients, managed with the current standard treatment using vasoactive drugs, band ligation, and antibiotics.

METHODS

One hundred and eighty five patients with liver cirrhosis and variceal bleeding admitted from January 2010 to July 2011 were evaluated.

RESULTS

Hepatocellular carcinoma was present in 28.1% of cases and portal vein thrombosis (PVT) was present in 17.3% of cases. Band ligation was feasible in 92.4% of cases. Five-day failure occurred in 16.8% of cases; 12 patients (6.5%) experienced failure to control bleeding or early rebleeding, and 66.7% of patients died within 5 days. The overall 5-day mortality rate was 14.6%. By multivariate analysis, we determined that Child-Pugh class C, a white blood cell count over 10 × 10(9)/l, and the presence of PVT were the only independent predictors of the 5-day failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The prognosis of a consistent group of liver cirrhosis patients with variceal bleeding remains poor. The current treatment is highly effective in controlling variceal bleeding, but mortality is related mainly to the severity of liver failure.

Prognostic indicators of survival in patients with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Patients with cirrhosis are classified in a compensated and a decompensated stage. Portal hypertension is responsible for most of the complications of cirrhosis that mark the transition from compensated to decompensated cirrhosis. The objectives of this study were (a) to analyse survival of the different stages and substages of cirrhosis and (b) to examine the prognostic value of the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) at each of the stages.

METHODS

A total of 729 patients with suspected cirrhosis underwent routine measurement of portal pressure and systemic haemodynamics between 11/1995 and 12/2004. The primary end-point of the study was death, collected until November 30th, 2006. Multivariable analysis was performed using two models to determine predictors of death at each stage.

RESULTS

A total of 443 patients were included in the study. The 1-year mortality was 5.4% in compensated and 20.2% in decompensated patients. Compensated patients in stage 1 (no varices) had a longer survival than stage 2 patients (varices present) (P = 0.015). In decompensated patients, survival was not different between stage 3 (ascites, with or without varices) and stage 4 (variceal haemorrhage, with or without ascites). Age and HVPG (cut-off 10 mmHg) were independent predictors of death in compensated patients, whereas MELD was in decompensated patients.

CONCLUSION

Survival rates and predictors of death are different between patients with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis. Unlike the Italian cohort staging system, ascites is a better stratifying clinical event than variceal haemorrhage in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. The presence of clinically significant portal hypertension has prognostic value in compensated cirrhosis.

von Willebrand factor as new noninvasive predictor of portal hypertension, decompensation and mortality in patients with liver cirrhosis

von Willebrand factor antigen (vWF-Ag) is elevated in patients with liver cirrhosis, but the clinical significance is unclear. We hypothesized that vWF-Ag levels may correlate with portal pressure, measured by hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), and predict clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH; HVPG ≥ 10 mmHg), decompensation and mortality. Portal hemodynamics were assessed by HVPG measurement, whereas vWF-Ag levels were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. During follow-up, complications of liver cirrhosis, death or transplantation were recorded. Two hundred and eighty-six patients (205 male and 81 female; mean age, 56 years) with liver cirrhosis were included. vWF-Ag correlated with HVPG (r = 0.69; P < 0.0001) and predicted CSPH independently of Child Pugh score. Higher vWF-Ag levels were associated with varices (odds ratio [OR] = 3.27; P < 0.001), ascites (OR = 3.93; P < 0.001) and mortality (hazard ratio: 4.41; P < 0.001). Using a vWF-Ag cut-off value of ≥ 241%, the AUC for detection of CSPH in compensated patients was 0.85, with a positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 87% and 80%, respectively. Compensated patients had 25% mortality after 53 months if the vWF-Ag was <315% compared to 15 months in patients with vWF-Ag >315% (P < 0.001). Decompensated patients had a mortality of 25% after 37 and 7 months if their vWF-Ag was <315% and >315%, respectively (P = 0.002). In compensated patients with a vWF-Ag >315% median time to decompensation or death was 32 months compared with 59 months in patients with vWF-Ag <315%. vWF-Ag equals Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) in mortality prediction (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.71 for vWF-Ag versus AUC = 0.65 for MELD; P = 0.2).

CONCLUSION

vWF-Ag is a new, simple and noninvasive predictor of CSPH. A vWF-Ag cut-off value at 315% can clearly stratify patients with compensated and decompensated liver cirrhosis in two groups with completely different survival. vWF-Ag may become a valuable marker for the prediction of mortality in patients with liver cirrhosis in clinical practice.

Efficacy of non-selective β-blockers as adjunct to endoscopic prophylactic treatment for gastric variceal bleeding: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Gastric variceal obturation (GVO) therapy is the current treatment of choice for gastric variceal bleeding (GVB). However, the efficacy of non-selective β-blockers (NSBB) in the secondary prevention of GVB is still debatable. This study aimed at evaluating the efficacy of additional NSBB to repeated GVO in the secondary prevention of GVB.

METHODS

From April 2007 to March 2011, 95 patients with GVB after primary hemostasis using GVO were enrolled. Repeated GVO were performed until GV eradication. Forty-eight and 47 patients were randomized into the GVO alone group (Group A) and the GVO+NSBB group (Group B), respectively. Primary outcomes in terms of re-bleeding and overall survival were analyzed by multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 18.10 months in group A, 26 patients bled and 20 died. In group B, 22 patients bled and 22 died after a mean follow-up of 20.29 months. The overall re-bleeding and survival rates analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method were not different between the two groups (p=0.336 and 0.936, respectively). The model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and main portal vein thrombosis (MPT) were independent determinants of re-bleeding while MPT and re-bleeding were independent factors of mortality by time-dependent Cox-regression model. Asthenia was the most common adverse event and was higher in group B (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding NSBB therapy to repeated GVO provides no benefit for the secondary prevention of bleeding and mortality in patients with GVB.

Prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices in cirrhosis

Variceal hemorrhage is one of the major complications of liver cirrhosis associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Its management has evolved over the past decade and has substantially reduced the rate of first and recurrent bleeding while decreasing mortality. In general, treatment of esophageal varices can be divided into three categories: primary prophylaxis (prevention of first episode of bleeding), management of acute bleeding, and secondary prophylaxis (prevention of recurrent hemorrhage). The goal of this paper is to describe the current evidence behind the management of esophageal varices. We will discuss indications for primary prophylaxis and the different modes of therapy, pharmacological and interventional treatment in acute bleeding, and therapeutic options in preventing recurrent bleeding. The indications for TIPS will also be reviewed including its possible benefits in acute variceal hemorrhage.

Treatment of portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is the main complication of cirrhosis and is defined as an hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) of more than 5 mmHg. Clinically significant portal hypertension is defined as HVPG of 10 mmHg or more. Development of gastroesophageal varices and variceal hemorrhage are the most direct consequence of portal hypertension. Over the last decades significant advancements in the field have led to standard treatment options. These clinical recommendations have evolved mostly as a result of randomized controlled trials and consensus conferences among experts where existing evidence has been reviewed and future goals for research and practice guidelines have been proposed. Management of varices/variceal hemorrhage is based on the clinical stage of portal hypertension. No specific treatment has shown to prevent the formation of varices. Prevention of first variceal hemorrhage depends on the size/characteristics of varices. In patients with small varices and high risk of bleeding, non-selective β-blockers are recommended, while patients with medium/large varices can be treated with either β-blockers or esophageal band ligation. Standard of care for acute variceal hemorrhage consists of vasoactive drugs, endoscopic band ligation and antibiotics prophylaxis. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is reserved for those who fail standard of care or for patients who are likely to fail (“early TIPS”). Prevention of recurrent variceal hemorrhage consists of the combination of β-blockers and endoscopic band ligation.

Non invasive evaluation of portal hypertension using transient elastography

The development of portal hypertension is a common consequence of chronic liver diseases leading to the formation of esophageal and gastric varices responsible for variceal bleeding, associated with a high mortality rate, as well as other severe complications such as portosystemic encephalopathy and sepsis. Measurement of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and upper GI endoscopy are considered the gold standards for portal hypertension assessment in patients with cirrhosis. However, both types of investigation are invasive and HVPG measurement is routinely available and/or performed with adequate standards only in expert centres. There is thus a need for non invasive methods able to predict, with acceptable diagnostic accuracy, the progression of portal hypertension toward the levels of clinically significant (i.e. HVPG ≥ 10 mmHg) and severe (HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg) as well as the presence and the size of oesophageal varices. Transient elastography (TE) is a novel non invasive technology that allows measuring liver stiffness and that has gained popularity over the past few years. Although TE has been initially proposed to assess liver fibrosis, a good correlation has been reported between liver stiffness values and HVPG as well as the presence of oesophageal varices, suggesting that it could be an interesting tool for the non invasive evaluation of portal hypertension. This review is aimed at discussing the advantages and limits of TE and the perspectives for its rationale use in clinical practice for the management of patients with portal hypertension.

Effectiveness of combined pharmacologic and ligation therapy in high-risk patients with acute esophageal variceal bleeding

OBJECTIVES

After an acute variceal bleeding, early decision for aggressive management of patients with worse prognosis may improve outcomes. The effectiveness of currently recommended standard therapy (drugs plus endoscopic ligation) for different risk subgroups and the validity of available risk criteria in clinical practice are unknown.

METHODS

We analyzed data of 301 consecutive cirrhotic patients admitted with esophageal variceal bleeding. All patients received antibiotics, somatostatin, and in 263 early endoscopic therapy. A stratified 6-week mortality assessment according to risk (low-risk: Child-Pugh B without active bleeding or Child-Pugh A; high-risk: Child-Pugh B with active bleeding or Child-Pugh C) was performed. A multivariate analysis was conducted to elaborate a new risk classification rule.

RESULTS

Among the 162 patients receiving emergency ligation, 14% rebled and 16% died. Standard therapy was very effective in all risk strata, even in high-risk patients, specially if eligible for therapeutic trials (child <14, age ≤75 years, creatinine ≤3.0 mg/dl, no hepatocellular carcinoma, or portal thrombosis), showing this stratum a 10% mortality. In patients receiving ligation, Child-Pugh C patients with baseline creatinine <1.0 mg/dl showed similar mortality to Child-Pugh A or B patients (8% vs. 7%, respectively). Only Child-Pugh C patients with creatinine ≥1.0 were at a significant higher risk (Child-Pugh C: 46% mortality if creatinine ≥1.0 vs. 8% if creatinine <1.0, P=0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of somatostatin, antibiotics, and endoscopic ligation after an acute variceal bleeding in a real-life situation is associated with very low mortality. Child-Pugh C patients with baseline creatinine ≥1.0 mg/dl should be considered high-risk patients in this setting.

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.

Improved survival with the patients with variceal bleed

Variceal hemorrhage is a major cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. Over the past two decades new treatment modalities have been introduced in the management of acute variceal bleeding (AVB) and several recent studies have suggested that the outcome of patients with cirrhosis and AVB has improved. Improved supportive measures, combination therapy which include early use of portal pressure reducing drugs with low rates of adverse effects (somatostatin, octerotide or terlipressin) and endoscopic variceal ligation has become the first line treatment in the management of AVB. Short-term antibiotic prophylaxis, early use of lactulose for prevention of hepatic encephalopathy, application of early transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic shunts (TIPS), fully covered self-expandable metallic stent in patients for AVB may be useful in those cases where balloon tamponade is considered. Early and wide availability of liver transplantation has changed the armamentarium of the clinician for patients with AVB. High hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) >20 mmHg in AVB has become a useful predictor of outcomes and more aggressive therapies with early TIPS based on HVPG measurement may be the treatment of choice to reduce mortality further.

MELD score can predict early mortality in patients with rebleeding after band ligation for variceal bleeding

AIM

To investigate the outcomes, as well as risk factors for 6-wk mortality, in patients with early rebleeding after endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVL) for esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH).

METHODS

Among 817 EVL procedures performed for EVH between January 2007 and December 2008, 128 patients with early rebleeding, defined as rebleeding within 6 wk after EVL, were enrolled for analysis.

RESULT

The rate of early rebleeding after EVL for acute EVH was 15.6% (128/817). The 5-d, 6-wk, 3-mo, and 6-mo mortality rates were 7.8%, 38.3%, 55.5%, and 58.6%, respectively, in these early rebleeding patients. The use of beta-blockers, occurrence of hypovolemic shock, and higher model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score at the time of rebleeding were independent predictors for 6-wk mortality. A cut-off value of 21.5 for the MELD score was found with an area under ROC curve of 0.862 (P < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 77.6%, 81%, 71.7%, and 85.3%, respectively. As for the 6-mo survival rate, patients with a MELD score ≥ 21.5 had a significantly lower survival rate than patients with a MELD score < 21.5 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that the MELD score is an easy and powerful predictor for 6-wk mortality and outcomes of patients with early rebleeding after EVL for EVH.

Diagnosis and management of acute variceal bleeding: Asian Pacific Association for Study of the Liver recommendations

BACKGROUND

Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is a medical emergency and associated with a mortality of 20% at 6 weeks. Significant advances have occurred in the recent past and hence there is a need to update the existing consensus guidelines. There is also a need to include the literature from the Eastern and Asian countries where majority of patients with portal hypertension (PHT) live.

METHODS

The expert working party, predominantly from the Asia-Pacific region, reviewed the existing literature and deliberated to develop consensus guidelines. The working party adopted the Oxford system for developing an evidence-based approach. Only those statements that were unanimously approved by the experts were accepted.

RESULTS

AVB is defined as a bleed in a known or suspected case of PHT, with the presence of hematemesis within 24 h of presentation, and/or ongoing melena, with last melanic stool within last 24 h. The time frame for the AVB episode is 48 h. AVB is further classified as active or inactive at the time of endoscopy. Combination therapy with vasoactive drugs (<30 min of hospitalization) and endoscopic variceal ligation (door to scope time <6 h) is accepted as first-line therapy. Rebleeding (48 h of T (0)) is further sub-classified as very early rebleeding (48 to 120 h from T (0)), early rebleeding (6 to 42 days from T (0)) and late rebleeding (after 42 days from T (0)) to maintain uniformity in clinical trials. Emphasis should be to evaluate the role of adjusted blood requirement index (ABRI), assessment of associated comorbid conditions and poor predictors of non-response to combination therapy, and proposed APASL (Asian Pacific Association for Study of the Liver) Severity Score in assessing these patients. Role of hepatic venous pressure gradient in AVB is considered useful. Antibiotic (cephalosporins) prophylaxis is recommended and search for acute ischemic hepatic injury should be done. New guidelines have been developed for management of variceal bleed in patients with non-cirrhotic PHT and variceal bleed in pediatric patients.

CONCLUSION

Management of acute variceal bleeding in Asia-Pacific region needs special attention for uniformity of treatment and future clinical trials.

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.

Application of endoscopy in improving survival of cirrhotic patients with acute variceal hemorrhage

Playing a central role in the modern multidisciplinary management of acute gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage, endoscopy is essential to stratify patient at risk, control active hemorrhage, and prevent first as well as recurrent bleeding. Before endoscopic procedure, antibiotic prophylaxis along with vasoactive medication is now routine practice. Intravenous erythromycin effectively cleanses stomach and may improve the quality of endoscopy. The timing of endoscopy should be on an urgent basis as delay for more than 15 hours after presentation is associated with mortality. Active variceal bleeding on endoscopy in a patient with hepatic decompensation heralds poor prognosis and mandates consideration of aggressive strategy with early portosystemic shunting. Band ligation has become the preferred modality to control and prevent bleeding from esophageal varices, although occasionally sclerotherapy may still be used to achieve hemostasis. Addition of pharmacotherapy with nonselective beta blockade to endoscopic ligation has become the current standard of care in the setting of secondary prophylaxis but remains controversial with inconsistent data for the purpose of primary prophylaxis. Gastric varices extending from esophagus may be treated like esophageal varices, whereas variceal obliteration by tissue glue is the endoscopic therapy of choice to control and prevent bleeding from fundic and isolated gastric 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.

Long-term follow-up of endoscopic Histoacryl glue injection for the management of gastric variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Variceal bleeding is an acute medical emergency with high mortality. Although less common than oesophageal variceal haemorrhage, gastric variceal bleeding is more severe and more difficult to control. The optimal therapy for gastric variceal bleeding remains unclear although endoscopic injection of N-Butyl-2-Cyanoacrylate (Histoacryl) glue is often used. However, its long-term efficacy is poorly described. We studied the immediate and long-term effects of Histoacryl glue injection as treatment for bleeding gastric varices in a large UK hospital.

METHOD

Endoscopy records and case notes were used to identify patients receiving Histoacryl injection for gastric variceal bleeding over a 4-year period.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients received Histoacryl for gastric variceal bleeding. Seventy-four per cent patients had alcohol-related liver disease and 61% of cirrhotics were Childs Pugh grade B or C. Fifty-eight per cent were actively bleeding during the procedure with 100% haemostasis rates achieved. Two patients developed pyrexia within 24 h of injection settling with antibiotics. No other complications were encountered. Mean overall follow-up was 35 months, with mean follow-up of survivors 57 months. Forty-eight per cent patients had endoscopic ultrasound assessment of varices during follow-up with no effect on rebleeding rates. Thirteen per cent required subsequent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement. Gastric variceal rebleeding rate was 10% at 1 year and 16% in total. One- and two-year mortality was 23% and 35%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic injection of Histoacryl glue appears to be a safe and effective treatment for gastric variceal bleeding. Further data are required to compare it with other therapies in this situation.

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.