Portosystemic shunts versus endoscopic therapy for variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis

TIPS and hepatic encephalopathy in patients with cirrhosis

Despite a better understanding in its prognosis and pathogenesis, hepatic encephalopathy (HE) remains one of the major complications of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (TIPS) with a prevalence ranging from 35 to 50%. Its epidemiology differs according to the indication for TIPS (salvage/rescue TIPS, preemptive (pTIPS) or elective TIPS). In salvage/rescue TIPS, the prognosis is linked to that of bleeding, and HE should not be a contraindication to TIPS, especially as bleeding is a common precipitating factor of HE. In pTIPS, i.e. TIPS performed within the 72 h after stabilization of acute variceal bleeding in high-risk patients, the risk rebleeding and HE is reduced, when compared to endoscopic and drugs treatment. As a consequence, the Baveno VII recommendations state that HE at admission should not be considered as a contraindication to pTIPS placement. In elective situations, such as refractory (intractable ascites (intolerance to diuretics) or resistant ascites (i.e. despite optimal diuretic treatment (spironolactone 400 mg/d and Furosemide 160 mg/d combined with low-salt treatment (< 5.2 g/day) or recurrent ascites (the need for at least 3 paracenteses per year) and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, it is recommended to systematically look for risk factors for HE, and chronic or refractory HE remain not recommended to TIPS in most centers. Chronic HE involves persistent neurological symptoms with fluctuating acute episodes. Recurrent HE refers to repeated episodes occurring within 6 months, while refractory HE is resistant to standard treatments, often requiring more aggressive management (Vilstrup et al. 2014). A careful selection of patients is mandatory before elective TIPS decision. Risk factors must be identified and corrected if possible before any TIPS decision is made. Management of HE after TIPS is based on identification of precipitating factors, curative treatment with lactulose as first-line therapy and rifaximin as second-line therapy, and nutritional management. In elective TIPS, prophylactic administration of rifaximin is recommended in order to decrease the risk of further HE development in selected patients (not in everyone, at least according to Baveno VII). Liver transplantation (LT) should be discussed with a multidisciplinary team as an alternative option to TIPS in case of high-risk of post-TIPS HE, and in case of refractory HE after TIPS.

French guidelines on TIPS: Indications and modalities

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has become essential in the treatment or prevention of portal hypertension-related complications. In the early 1990s, the primary indication was refractory bleeding. It is now proposed for the treatment of ascites for the prevention of bleeding and in patients with vascular diseases of the liver. Thus, there are a growing number of patients being treated with TIPS all over the world. The broadening of indications, the involvement of multiple stakeholders, the need for an accurate selection, the positioning in relation to transplantation and the lack of standardization in pre-therapeutic assessment, in the procedure itself and in the follow-up have led the board of the French Association for the Study of the Liver to establish recommendations.

Outcomes of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt and Gastric Coronary Vein Embolization for Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Portal Hypertension

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) combined with gastric coronary vein embolization (GCVE) for cirrhotic portal hypertensive variceal bleeding and compare outcomes of first-line with second-line treatment, coil with glue, and single-covered with double stents.Methods: Fifteen patients received TIPS plus GCVE as the first-line treatment for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and 45 received it as second-line treatment. Preoperative and postoperative quantitative variables were compared using a paired t test. The incidence of survival rate, re-bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, and shunt dysfunction were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.Results: The portal venous pressure was significantly decreased from 39.0 ± 5.0 mm Hg to 22.5 ± 4.4 mm Hg (P≤0.001) after TIPS treatment. After 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months re-bleeding rates were 1.6%, 3.3%, 6.6%, 13.3%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. Shunt dysfunction rates were 5%, 0%, 10%, 16.6%, 1.6%, and 5%, respectively. Hepatic encephalopathy rates were 3.3%, 1.6%, 3.3%, 6.6%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. And survival rates were 100%, 100%, 100%, 96.6%, 93.3%, and 88.3% respectively. In comparative analysis, statistically significant differences were seen in re-bleeding between the first-line and second-line treatment groups (26.6% vs 24.4%, log-rank P=0.012), and survival rates between single-covered and double stent (3.7% vs 16.1%, log-rang (P=0.043).Conclusion: The results suggest that TIPS combined with GCVE is effective and safer in the treatment of cirrhotic portal hypertensive variceal bleeding. The use of TIP plus GCVE as first-line treatment, may be preferable for high-risk re-bleeding, and more than 25 mm Hg portal venous pressure with repeated variceal bleeding. However, the sample size was small. Therefore, large, randomized, controlled, multidisciplinary center studies are needed for further evaluation.

Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Russian Society for the Study of the Liver, the Russian Gastroenterological Association, the National Scientific Society of Infectious Disease Specialists for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C

Аim:diagnosis and treatment algorithms in the clinical recommendations intended for general practitioners, gastroenterologists, infectious disease specialists, hepatologists on the of chronic hepatitis C are presented.

Summary.Chronic viral hepatitis C is a socially significant infection, the incidence of which in the Russian Federation remains significantly high. Over the past 10 years, great progress has been made in the treatment of hepatitis C — direct acting antiviral drugs have appeared. The spectrum of their effectiveness allows to achieve a sustained virological response in more than 90 % of cases, even in groups that were not previously considered even as candidates for therapy or were difficult to treat — patients receiving renal replacement therapy, after liver transplantation (or other organs), at the stage of decompensated liver cirrhosis, HIV co-infected, etc. Interferons are excluded from the recommendations due to their low effectiveness and a wide range of adverse events. The indications for the treatment have been expanded, namely, the fact of confirmation of viral replication. The terms of dispensary observation of patients without cirrhosis of the liver have been reduced (up to 12 weeks after the end of therapy). Also, these recommendations present approaches to active screening of hepatitis in risk groups, preventive and rehabilitation measures after the end of treatment.

Conclusion.Great success has been achieved in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. In most cases, eradication of viral HCV infection is a real task even in patients at the stage of cirrhosis of the liver, with impaired renal function, HIV co-infection, after solid organs transplantation.

Treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS software, using Bayesian methods, and calculated the differences in treatments using odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed also the direct comparisons from RCTs using the same codes and the same technical details.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.

Pathophysiology and Management of Variceal Bleeding

Cirrhosis is the fifth leading cause of death in adults. Advanced cirrhosis can cause significant portal hypertension (PH), which is responsible for many of the complications observed in patients with cirrhosis, such as varices. If portal pressure exceeds a certain threshold, the patient is at risk of developing life-threatening bleeding from varices. Variceal bleeding has a high incidence among patients with liver cirrhosis and carries a high risk of mortality and morbidity. The management of variceal bleeding is complex, often requiring a multidisciplinary approach involving pharmacological, endoscopic, and radiologic interventions. In terms of management, three stages can be considered: primary prophylaxis, active bleeding, and secondary prophylaxis. The main goal of primary and secondary prophylaxis is to prevent variceal bleeding. However, active variceal bleeding is a medical emergency that requires swift intervention to stop the bleeding and achieve durable hemostasis. We describe the pathophysiology of cirrhosis and PH to contextualize the formation of gastric and esophageal varices. We also discuss the currently available treatments and compare how they fare in each stage of clinical management, with a special focus on drugs that can prevent bleeding or assist in achieving hemostasis.

The association between character of portal blood flow and post-TIPS incidence of hepatic encephalopathy

Background

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is one of the serious complications observed post-TIPS operations in patients with different complications of portal hypertension such as refractory ascites, refractory hydrothorax, bleeding varices, and hepato-renal syndrome. Herein, we aimed to clarify predisposing factors for post-TIPS incidence of HE according to pre-TIPS hemodynamics.

Results

Fifty patients were enrolled in this study with different complications of portal hypertension; most of them have Child A and B scores. Patients were evaluated by ultrasound Doppler for the flow inside the portal vein and clinically recorded into two groups: group 1, 31 patients with hepatopetal flow; and group 2, 19 patients with hepatofugal flow. Then, TIPS was performed and patients were reassessed 1 month later to detect HE. Multiple variables such as age, gender, etiology of liver disease, and indication for TIPS had no significant differences. The incidence of HE post-TIPS was observed more at group 1 more than at group 2 (P = 0.02).

Conclusions

Post-TIPS incidence of HE was interestingly related to pre-TIPS flow in the portal vein (hepatopetal group more than hepatofugal group). Patients with hepatofugal flow in the portal vein are perfect candidate for TIPS than patients with hepatopetal flow in the portal vein. Patients with previous history of HE are contraindicated for TIPS except as a bridge for liver transplantation.

Portosystemic shunts versus endoscopic intervention with or without medical treatment for prevention of rebleeding in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

People with liver cirrhosis who have had one episode of variceal bleeding are at risk for repeated episodes of bleeding. Endoscopic intervention and portosystemic shunts are used to prevent further bleeding, but there is no consensus as to which approach is preferable.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of shunts (surgical shunts (total shunt (TS), distal splenorenal shunt (DSRS), or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)) versus endoscopic intervention (endoscopic sclerotherapy or banding, or both) with or without medical treatment (non-selective beta blockers or nitrates, or both) for prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with liver cirrhosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CHBG Controlled Trials Register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS (Bireme); Science Citation Index - Expanded (Web of Science); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science); as well as conference proceedings and the references of trials identified until 22 June 2020. We contacted study investigators and industry researchers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing shunts versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis who had recovered from a variceal haemorrhage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. When possible, we collected data to allow intention-to-treat analysis. For each outcome, we estimated a meta-analysed estimate of treatment effect across trials (risk ratio for binary outcomes). We used random-effects model meta-analysis as our main analysis and as a means of presenting results. We reported differences in means for continuous outcomes without a meta-analytic estimate due to high variability in their assessment among all trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 27 randomised trials with 1828 participants. Three trials assessed TSs, five assessed DSRSs, and 19 trials assessed TIPSs. The endoscopic intervention was sclerotherapy in 16 trials, band ligation in eight trials, and a combination of band ligation and either sclerotherapy or glue injection in three trials. In eight trials, endoscopy was combined with beta blockers (in one trial plus isosorbide mononitrate). We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all the outcome review results as very low (i.e. the true effects of the results are likely to be substantially different from the results of estimated effects). The very low evidence grading is due to the overall high risk of bias for all trials, and to imprecision and publication bias for some outcomes. Therefore, we are very uncertain whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment have effects on all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.13; 1828 participants; 27 trials), on rebleeding (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50; 1769 participants; 26 trials), on mortality due to rebleeding (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; 1779 participants; 26 trials), and on occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy, both acute (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.92; 1649 participants; 24 trials) and chronic (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.55; 956 participants; 13 trials). No data were available regarding health-related quality of life. Analysing each modality of portosystemic shunts individually (i.e. TS, DSRS, and TIPS) versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment, we are very uncertain if each type of shunt has effect on all-cause mortality: TS, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.13; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.33; 352 participants; 4 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.31; 1312 participants; 19 trial; on rebleeding: TS, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.56; 127 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.65; 330 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.55; 1312 participants; 19 trials; on mortality due to rebleeding: TS, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.74; 352 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.04; 1263 participants; 18 trials; on acute hepatic encephalopathy: TS, RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.92; 115 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.08; 287 participants; 4 trials, TIPS, RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.99; 1247 participants; 18 trials; and chronic hepatic encephalopathy: TS, Fisher's exact test P = 0.11; 69 participants; 1 trial; DSRS, RR 4.87, 95% CI 1.46 to 16.23; 170 participants; 2 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.93 to 3.80; 717 participants; 10 trials. The proportion of participants with shunt occlusion or dysfunction was overall 37% (95% CI 33% to 40%). It was 3% (95% CI 0.8% to 10%) following TS, 7% (95% CI 3% to 13%) following DSRS, and 47.1% (95% CI 43% to 51%) following TIPS. Shunt dysfunction in trials utilising polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents was 17% (95% CI 11% to 24%). Length of inpatient hospital stay and cost were not comparable across trials. Funding was unclear in 16 trials; 11 trials were funded by government, local hospitals, or universities.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis and previous hypertensive portal bleeding have little or no effect on all-cause mortality is very uncertain. Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts may reduce bleeding and mortality due to bleeding while increasing hepatic encephalopathy is also very uncertain. We need properly conducted trials to assess effects of these interventions not only on assessed outcomes, but also on quality of life, costs, and length of hospital stay.

Association Between Institutional Factors and Long-Term Survival Following Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is a procedure designed to treat portal hypertension. Hospital teaching status is an institutional factor found to be predictive of outcomes following several complex procedures; however, its impact on outcomes following TIPS is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the association between hospital teaching status and long‐term survival in patients with cirrhosis receiving TIPS. We performed a retrospective population‐based cohort study using linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada. Adult patients with cirrhosis who received TIPS between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2016, with follow‐up until December 31, 2017, were included. Hospital teaching status was defined based on hospital participation in the instruction of medical students and/or resident physicians. Liver transplant‐free (LTF) survival was evaluated using Kaplan‐Meier analysis, and overall survival was assessed using competing risks regression analysis, which accounted for hospital clustering. A total of 857 unique patients were included (mean age 57.1 years; 69.1% male). The TIPS procedures were performed in teaching hospitals (84.3%) as well as nonteaching hospitals (15.7%). Median LTF survival was more than twice as long for procedures performed in teaching hospitals compared to nonteaching hospitals (2.2 years versus 0.9 year, respectively; P < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders and clustering, hospital teaching status was not independently associated with mortality (nonteaching subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97‐1.81; P = 0.08); however, annual hospital procedure volume was (per unit increase sHR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93‐0.99; P = 0.003). Conclusion: Hospital procedure volume is associated with long‐term survival following TIPS. These results further support the centralization of TIPS to high‐volume hospitals to improve long‐term outcomes in this population.

Secondary prevention of bleeding in people with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta‐analysis

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for the prevention of rebleeding in people with a history of oesophageal varices due to decompensated liver cirrhosis.

Surgical portosystemic shunts versus devascularisation procedures for prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis

BACKGROUND

Hepatosplenic schistosomiasis is an important cause of variceal bleeding in low-income countries. Randomised clinical trials have evaluated the outcomes of two categories of surgical interventions, shunts and devascularisation procedures, for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis. The comparative overall benefits and harms of these two interventions are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of surgical portosystemic shunts versus oesophagogastric devascularisation procedures for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, reference lists of articles, and proceedings of relevant associations for trials that met the inclusion criteria (date of search 11 January 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing surgical portosystemic shunts versus oesophagogastric devascularisation procedures for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the trials and extracted data using methodological standards expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias according to domains and risk of random errors with GRADE and Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We found two randomised clinical trials including 154 adult participants, aged between 18 years and 65 years, diagnosed with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis. One of the trials randomised participants to proximal splenorenal shunt versus distal splenorenal shunt versus oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy, and the other randomised participants to distal splenorenal shunt versus oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy. In both trials the diagnosis of hepatosplenic schistosomiasis was made based on clinical and biochemical assessments. The trials were conducted in Brazil and Egypt. Both trials were at high risk of bias.We are uncertain as to whether surgical portosystemic shunts improved all-cause mortality compared with oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy due to imprecision in the trials (risk ratio (RR) 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 9.92; participants = 154; studies = 2). We are uncertain whether serious adverse events differed between surgical portosystemic shunts and oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy (RR 2.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 11.70; participants = 154; studies = 2). None of the trials reported on health-related quality of life. We are uncertain whether variceal rebleeding differed between surgical portosystemic shunts and oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.23; participants = 154; studies = 2). We found evidence suggesting an increase in encephalopathy in the shunts group versus the devascularisation with splenectomy group (RR 7.51, 95% CI 1.45 to 38.89; participants = 154; studies = 2). We are uncertain whether ascites and re-interventions differed between surgical portosystemic shunts and oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy. We computed Trial Sequential Analysis for all outcomes, but the trial sequential monitoring boundaries could not be drawn because of insufficient sample size and events. We downgraded the overall certainty of the body of evidence for all outcomes to very low due to risk of bias and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given the very low certainty of the available body of evidence and the low number of clinical trials, we could not determine an overall benefit or harm of surgical portosystemic shunts compared with oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy. Future randomised clinical trials should be designed with sufficient statistical power to assess the benefits and harms of surgical portosystemic shunts versus oesophagogastric devascularisations with or without splenectomy and with or without oesophageal transection.

Managing portal hypertension in patients with liver cirrhosis

Portal hypertension is one cause and a part of a dynamic process triggered by chronic liver disease, mostly induced by alcohol or incorrect nutrition and less often by viral infections and autoimmune or genetic disease. Adequate staging - continuously modified by current knowledge - should guide the prevention and treatment of portal hypertension with defined endpoints. The main goals are interruption of etiology and prevention of complications followed, if necessary, by treatment of these. For the past few decades, shunts, mostly as intrahepatic stent bypass between portal and hepatic vein branches, have played an important role in the prevention of recurrent bleeding and ascites formation, although their impact on survival remains ambiguous. Systemic drugs, such as non-selective beta-blockers, statins, or antibiotics, reduce portal hypertension by decreasing intrahepatic resistance or portal tributary blood flow or by blunting inflammatory stimuli inside and outside the liver. Here, the interactions among the gut, liver, and brain are increasingly examined for new therapeutic options. There is no general panacea. The interruption of initiating factors is key. If not possible or if not possible in a timely manner, combined approaches should receive more attention before considering liver transplantation.

Comparison of treatment outcomes between balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for gastric variceal bleeding hemostasis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Both balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) are considered effective treatments for gastric variceal bleeding (GVB). In this study, outcomes of these two procedures were compared in managing patients with GVB.

METHODS

A total of 142 patients undergoing BRTO (n = 95) or TIPS (n = 47) between 2005 and 2012 at two tertiary centers were selected for retrospective review.

RESULTS

Mean patient age (male, 115; female, 27) was 58.1 years. Alcoholic liver cirrhosis was the most common underlying cause (n = 63, 44.4%), followed by hepatitis B (n = 60, 42.3%) and hepatitis C (n = 7, 4.9%) viral infections. Concurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was identified in 64 (45.1%) patients. During the follow-up period (mean, 28.2 months), 27 patients (19%) experienced re-bleeding. Cumulative re-bleeding rates after BRTO (8.6% at 1 year; 22.7% at 3 years) were significantly lower than those after TIPS (19.8% at 1 year; 48.2% at 3 years; P = 0.006, log-rank test). In multivariate analysis, TIPS (vs BRTO) was found independently predictive of re-bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.174; P = 0.048), in addition to concurrent HCC and poor baseline Child-Pugh score (both P < 0.05). Although BRTO surpassed TIPS (P = 0.026, log-rank test) in terms of overall postprocedural survival, independent factors predictive of poor overall survival after hemostasis were concurrent HCC (HR = 3.106), high Child-Pugh score (HR = 1.886 per 1-point increase), and postprocedural hepatic encephalopathy (HR = 3.014; all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration proved more effective than TIPS in hemostasis of GVB, associated with significantly less risk of re-bleeding.

Endoscopic tissue adhesive injection for treatment of gastric variceal bleeding

Endoscopy is an important means for the prevention and treatment of gastric variceal bleeding. With definite curative effects and mild side effects, endoscopic tissue adhesive injection has become a preferred first-line treatment for gastric variceal hemorrhage and is now widely used in clinical practice. However, it is still controversial regarding surgical technique, long-term efficacy, risk of complications, and the effect of secondary prevention of gastric variceal bleeding. This article makes a summary of the above points of dispute.

Could there be light at the end of the tunnel? Mesocaval shunting for refractory esophageal varices in patients with contraindications to transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt

Cirrhotic patients with recurrent variceal bleeds who have failed prior medical and endoscopic therapies and are not transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt candidates face a grim prognosis with limited options. We propose that mesocaval shunting be offered to this group of patients as it has the potential to decrease portal pressures and thus decrease the risk of recurrent variceal bleeding. Mesocaval shunts are stent grafts placed by interventional radiologists between the mesenteric system, most often the superior mesenteric vein, and the inferior vena cava. This allows flow to bypass the congested hepatic system, reducing portal pressures. This technique avoids the general anesthesia and morbidity associated with surgical shunt placement and has been successful in several case reports. In this paper we review the technique, candidate selection, potential pitfalls and benefits of mesocaval shunt placement.

U.K. guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients

These updated guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage have been commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee (CSSC) of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the liver section of the BSG. The original guidelines which this document supersedes were written in 2000 and have undergone extensive revision by 13 members of the Guidelines Development Group (GDG). The GDG comprises elected members of the BSG liver section, representation from British Association for the Study of the Liver (BASL) and Liver QuEST, a nursing representative and a patient representative. The quality of evidence and grading of recommendations was appraised using the AGREE II tool.The nature of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients with its complex range of complications makes rigid guidelines inappropriate. These guidelines deal specifically with the management of varices in patients with cirrhosis under the following subheadings: (1) primary prophylaxis; (2) acute variceal haemorrhage; (3) secondary prophylaxis of variceal haemorrhage; and (4) gastric varices. They are not designed to deal with (1) the management of the underlying liver disease; (2) the management of variceal haemorrhage in children; or (3) variceal haemorrhage from other aetiological conditions.

Clinical Management of Chronic Portal/Mesenteric Vein Thrombosis: The Surgeon's Point of View

BACKGROUND

Bleeding from esophageal varices is a life-threatening complication of chronic portal hypertension (PH), occuring in 15% of patients with a mortality rate between 20 and 35%.

METHODS

Based on a literature review and personal experience in the therapy of PH, we recommend a therapy strategy for the secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in PH.

RESULTS

The main causes for PH in western countries are alcoholic/viral liver cirrhosis and extrahepatic portal/mesenteric vein occlusion, mainly caused by myeloproliferative neoplasms or hypercoagulability syndromes. The primary therapy is medical; however, when recurrent bleeding occurs, a definitive therapy is required. In the case of parenchymal decompensation, liver transplantation is the causal therapy, but in case of good hepatic reserve or without underlying liver disease, a portal decompressive therapy is necessary. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt has achieved a widespread acceptance, although evidence is comparable with or better for surgical shunting procedures in patients with good liver function. The type of surgical shunt should be chosen depending on the patent veins of the portovenous system and the personal expertise.

CONCLUSION

The therapy decision should be based on liver function, morphology of the portovenous system, and imminent liver transplantation and should be made by an interdisciplinary team of gastroenterologists, interventional radiologists, and visceral surgeons.

Screening and Prophylaxis for Varices in Children with Liver Disease

Esophageal varices in children with portal hypertension are quite common. Bleeding from these varices frequently occurs. Prophylactic measures to prevent such bleeding can be undertaken either before ("primary," prompted by a screening endoscopy) or after ("secondary") an initial variceal bleed. There are no clear pediatric guidelines for primary or secondary prophylaxis of esophageal varices. Adult studies clearly support the use of pharmacologic (beta blockers) and endoscopic (endoscopic band ligation, EBL) management for both primary and secondary prophylaxis of esophageal varices in patients with portal hypertension. Pediatric studies are limited. There are inadequate data to recommend use of beta blockers to prevent variceal bleeding or rebleeding in children with portal hypertension. There is very limited support for EBL for primary prophylaxis in children and more compelling support for EBL for secondary prophylaxis. Further randomized controlled studies are needed but are difficult to implement in this vulnerable population.

Endoscopic Diagnosis and Therapy in Gastroesophageal Variceal Bleeding

Gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage is a medical emergency with high morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic therapy is the mainstay of management of bleeding varices. It requires attention to technique and the appropriate choice of therapy for a given patient at a given point in time. Subjects must be monitored continuously after initiation of therapy for control of bleeding, and second-line definitive therapies must be introduced quickly if endoscopic and pharmacologic treatment fails.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts and portal hypertension-related complications

Portal hypertension (PH) plays an important role in the natural history of cirrhosis, and is associated with several clinical consequences. The introduction of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) in the 1980s has been regarded as a major technical advance in the management of the PH-related complications. At present, polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents are the preferred option over traditional bare metal stents. TIPS is currently indicated as a salvage therapy in patients with bleeding esophageal varices who fail standard treatment. Recently, applying TIPS early (within 72 h after admission) has been shown to be an effective and life-saving treatment in those with high-risk variceal bleeding. In addition, TIPS is recommended as the second-line treatment for secondary prophylaxis. For bleeding gastric varices, applying TIPS was able to achieve hemostasis in more than 90% of patients. More trials are needed to clarify the efficacy of TIPS compared with other treatment modalities, including cyanoacrylate injection and balloon retrograde transvenous obliteration of gastric varices. TIPS should also be considered in bleeding ectopic varices and refractory portal hypertensive gastropathy. In patients with refractory ascites, there is growing evidence that TIPS not only results in better control of ascites, but also improves long-term survival in appropriately selected candidates. In addition, TIPS is a promising treatment for refractory hepatic hydrothorax. However, the role of TIPS in the treatment of hepatorenal and hepatopulmonary syndrome is not well defined. The advantage of TIPS is offset by a risk of developing hepatic encephalopathy, the most relevant post-procedural complication. Emerging data are addressing the determination the optimal time and patient selection for TIPS placement aiming at improving long-term treatment outcome. This review is aimed at summarizing the published data regarding the application of TIPS in the management of complications related to PH.

Percutaneous Portosystemic Shunts: TIPS and Beyond

Percutaneous interventions for portal hypertension have been available since the 1990s. Over time, improved technology-including covered stent grafts-and clinical understanding has expanded the available procedures for percutaneous portal decompression. While transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation is the most commonly cited percutaneous intervention, direct intrahepatic portocaval shunt and percutaneous mesocaval shunt creation are important alternatives with specific advantages and applications. This article reviews contemporary, minimally invasive interventional approaches to percutaneous portosystemic shunt creation in terms of procedure rationale, patient selection, interventional technique, and technical outcomes.

Selection of a TIPS stent for management of portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis: An evidence-based review

Nowadays, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has become a mainstay treatment option for the management of portal hypertension-related complications in liver cirrhosis. Accumulated evidence has shown that its indications are being gradually expanded. Notwithstanding, less attention has been paid for the selection of an appropriate stent during a TIPS procedure. Herein, we attempt to review the current evidence regarding the diameter, type, brand, and position of TIPS stents. Several following recommendations may be considered in the clinical practice: (1) a 10-mm stent may be more effective than an 8-mm stent for the management of portal hypertension, and may be superior to a 12-mm stent for the improvement of survival and shunt patency; (2) covered stents are superior to bare stents for reducing the development of shunt dysfunction; (3) if available, Viatorr stent-grafts may be recommended due to a higher rate of shunt patency; and (4) the placement of a TIPS stent in the left portal vein branch may be more reasonable for decreasing the development of hepatic encephalopathy. However, given relatively low quality of evidence, prospective well-designed studies should be warranted to further confirm these recommendations.

TIPS for treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis: Analysis of 232 cases

AIM: To investigate the clinical effect of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in treating gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis.

METHODS: Four hundred liver cirrhosis patients with portal hypertension were divided into either a TIPS group (n = 232) or a control group (n = 168). The demographic data of patients, liver function, gastrointestinal bleeding, and the quality of life, were investigated and analyzed. The follow-up period was 6 mo.

RESULTS: The main cause of cirrhosis was hepatitis B virus infection. There were more men than women. The average age of onset was about 50 years, and the majority of patients had Child-Pugh B disease. The percentage of patients without bleeding or with only one episode of bleeding in the TIPS group was significantly higher than that in the control group (15.5% vs 31.5%, P < 0.05), while the proportion patients with three or more episodes of bleeding was lower than that in the control group (10.8% vs 18.5%, P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in liver function parameters (ALB: 26.38 ± 4.87 vs 26.79 ± 6.28; PALB: 81.82 ± 23.76 vs 82.04 ± 18.67; P > 0.05). The SF-36 scale survey showed that there were no significant differences in the indexes of energy (64.8 ± 8.12 vs 61.2 ± 7.28) or physical aspects (74.5 ± 9.39 vs 69.1 ± 9.75) between 6 mo after operation and preoperation in the TIPS group, while the rest indicators at 6 mo after operation in the TIPS group differed significantly from those in the control group and those in the TIPS group before operation (P < 0.05). All indexes in the CLDQ questionnaire at 6 mo after operation in the TIPS group differed significantly from those in the control group and those in the TIPS group before operation (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: TIPS can obviously reduce the episode of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis and improve the quality of life, and the surgery itself has no effect on the liver function of patients.

Secondary prophylaxis for esophageal variceal bleeding

Combination therapy with beta-blockers and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the standard prophylaxis of esophageal variceal rebleeding in cirrhosis. Beta-blockers are the backbone of combination therapy, since their benefit extend to other complications of portal hypertension. EBL carries the risk of post-banding ulcer bleeding, which explains why overall rebleeding is reduced when beta-blockers are added to EBL, and not when EBL is added to beta-blockers. TIPS is the rescue treatment, but it could be considered as first choice in patients that first bleed while on beta-blockers, those with contraindications to beta-blockers or with refractory ascites, and those with fundal varices.

Management of variceal hemorrhage: current concepts

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of portal hypertension is complex and the the best strategy depends on the underlying disease (cirrhosis vs. schistosomiasis), patient's clinical condition and time on it is performed (during an acute episode of variceal bleeding or electively, as pre-primary, primary or secondary prophylaxis). With the advent of new pharmacological options and technical development of endoscopy and interventional radiology treatment of portal hypertension has changed in recent decades.

AIM

To review the strategies employed in elective and emergency treatment of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic and schistosomotic patients.

METHODS

Survey of publications in PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, SciELO and Cochrane databases through June 2013, using the headings: portal hypertension, esophageal and gastric varices, variceal bleeding, liver cirrhosis, schistosomiasis mansoni, surgical treatment, pharmacological treatment, secondary prophylaxis, primary prophylaxis, pre-primary prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

Pre-primary prophylaxis doesn't have specific treatment strategies; the best recommendation is treatment of the underlying disease. Primary prophylaxis should be performed in cirrhotic patients with beta-blockers or endoscopic variceal ligation. There is controversy regarding the effectiveness of primary prophylaxis in patients with schistosomiasis; when indicated, it is done with beta-blockers or endoscopic therapy in high-risk varices. Treatment of acute variceal bleeding is systematized in the literature, combination of vasoconstrictor drugs and endoscopic therapy, provided significant decline in mortality over the last decades. TIPS and surgical treatment are options as rescue therapy. Secondary prophylaxis plays a fundamental role in the reduction of recurrent bleeding, the best option in cirrhotic patients is the combination of pharmacological therapy with beta-blockers and endoscopic band ligation. TIPS or surgical treatment, are options for controlling rebleeding on failure of secondary prophylaxis. Despite the increasing evidence of the effectiveness of pharmacological and endoscopic treatment in schistosomotic patients, surgical therapy still plays an important role in secondary prophylaxis.

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.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt vs endoscopic therapy in preventing variceal rebleeding

AIM: To compare early use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) with endoscopic treatment (ET) for the prophylaxis of recurrent variceal bleeding.

METHODS: In-patient data were collected from 190 patients between January 2007 and June 2010 who suffured from variceal bleeding. Patients who were older than 75 years; previously received surgical treatment or endoscopic therapy for variceal bleeding; and complicated with hepatic encephalopathy or hepatic cancer, were excluded from this research. Thirty-five cases lost to follow-up were also excluded. Retrospective analysis was done in 126 eligible cases. Among them, 64 patients received TIPS (TIPS group) while 62 patients received endoscopic therapy (ET group). The relevant data were collected by patient review or telephone calls. The occurrence of rebleeding, hepatic encephalopathy or other complications, survival rate and cost of treatment were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: During the follow-up period (median, 20.7 and 18.7 mo in TIPS and ET groups, respectively), rebleeding from any source occurred in 11 patients in the TIPS group as compared with 31 patients in the ET group (Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test, P = 0.000). Rebleeding rates at any time point (6 wk, 1 year and 2 year) in the TIPS group were lower than in the ET group (Bonferroni correction α’ = α/3). Eight patients in the TIPS group and 16 in the ET group died with the cumulative survival rates of 80.6% and 64.9% (Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test χ² = 4.864, P = 0.02), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to 6-wk survival rates (Bonferroni correction α’ = α/3). However, significant differences were observed between the two groups in the 1-year survival rates (92% and 79%) and the 2-year survival rates (89% and 64.9%) (Bonferroni correction α’ = α/3). No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in the occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy (12 patients in TIPS group and 5 in ET group, Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test, χ² = 3.103, P = 0.08). The average total cost for the TIPS group was higher than for ET group (Wilcxon-Mann Whitney test, 52 678 RMB vs 38 844 RMB, P < 0.05), but hospitalization frequency and hospital stay during follow-up period were lower (Wilcxon-Mann Whitney test, 0.4 d vs 1.3 d, P = 0.01; 5 d vs 19 d, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Early use of TIPS is more effective than endoscopic treatment in preventing variceal rebleeding and improving survival rate, and does not increase occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy.

Endo-hepatology: a new paradigm

Recent advances in hepatology have included a new and effective treatment of viral hepatitis, with an increased need for the assessment of liver function and histology. At the same time, there have been a growing number of endoscopic procedures that are pertinent to patients with liver disease. It would be ideal if the assessment and treatment of liver disease and portal hypertension could be performed and assimilated by the liver/gastrointestinal specialist. The authors like to consider this area of integration or overlap of endoscopic procedures within the practice of hepatology as endo-hepatology.

[Portosystemic shunt surgery between TIPS and liver transplantation]

Portosystemic shunt surgery in addition to transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) insertion must still be regarded as a current treatment option for portomesenteric decompression in patients with pharmacological and endoscopic treatment failure, where liver transplantation is not imminent. This applies to secondary prophylaxis of rebleeding from varices in patients with well preserved liver function, e.g. liver cirrhosis CHILD A or extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis. Even if emergency endoscopy represents the treatment of choice in the acute bleeding situation, latest data from San Diego on emergency portacaval shunt surgery are encouraging. Likewise, portacaval shunt procedures can be an attractive alternative to TIPS or liver transplantation for acute Budd-Chiari syndrome or veno-occlusive disease.This article is an update on the systematics and methodology of portacaval shunt surgery, emphasizing the significance of this treatment option based on latest studies.

Current role of surgery in portal hypertension

Treatment for portal hypertension (PHT) has evolved from surgery being the only option during the 1970s to the wide range of options currently available. Surgery has not vanished from the therapeutic armamentarium, but its role has changed and is constantly evolving. The present review primarily focuses on the role of surgery in tackling patients with PHT and varices with regard to the Indian scenario and also looks at its relevance, given the availability of a host of other therapeutic options.

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.

Technical and clinical outcome of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt: bare metal stents (BMS) versus viatorr stent-grafts (VSG)

PURPOSE

To compare retrospectively angiographical and clinical results in patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt (TIPS) using BMS or VSG.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From February 2001 to January 2010, 245 patients underwent TIPS. From those, 174 patients matched the inclusion criteria with elective procedures and institutional follow-up. Group (I) consisted of 116 patients (mean age, 57.0±11.1 years) with BMS. Group (II) consisted of 58 patients with VSG (mean age, 53.5±16.1 years). Angiographic and clinical controls were scheduled at 3, 6 and 12 months, followed by clinical controls every 6 months. Primary study goals included hemodynamic success, shunt patency as well as time to and number of revisions. Secondary study goals included clinical success.

RESULTS

Hemodynamic success was 92.2% in I and 91.4% in II (n.s.). Primary patency was significantly higher in II compared to I (53.8% after 440.4±474.5 days versus 45.8% after 340.1±413.8 days; p<0.05). The first TIPS revision was performed significantly later in II compared to I (288.3±334.7 days versus 180.1±307.0 days; p<0.05). In the first angiographic control, a portosystemic pressure gradient ≥15 mmHg was present in 73.9% in I and in 39.4% in II (p<0.05). Clinical success was 73.7-86.2% after 466.3±670.1 days in I and 85.7-90.5% after 617.5±642.7 days in II (n.s.). Hepatic encephalopathy was 37.5% in I and 36.5% in II (n.s.).

CONCLUSION

VSG increased primary shunt patency as well as decreased time to and number of TIPS revisions. There was a trend of higher clinical success in VSG without increased hepatic encephalopathy.

Liver transplantation in a randomized controlled trial of emergency treatment of acutely bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Bleeding esophageal varices (BEV) in cirrhosis has been considered an indication for liver transplantation (LT). This issue was examined in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of unselected, consecutive patients with advanced cirrhosis and BEV that compared endoscopic sclerotherapy (EST; n = 106) to emergency direct portacaval shunt (EPCS; n = 105).

METHODS

Diagnostic work-up and treatment were initiated within 8 hours. Patients were evaluated for LT on admission and repeatedly thereafter; 96% underwent over 10 years of regular follow-up. The analysis was supplemented by 1300 unrandomized cirrhotic patients who previously underwent portacaval shunt (PCS) with 100% follow-up.

RESULTS

In the RCT long-term bleeding control was 100% following EPCS, only 20% following EST. Also, 3-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year survival rates were 75%, 73%, 46%, and 46%, respectively, following EPCS compared with 44%, 21%, 9%, and 9% following EST, respectively (P < .001). Only 13 RCT patients (6%) were ultimately referred for LT mainly because of progressive liver failure; only 7 (3%) were approved for LT and only 4 (2%) underwent LT. The 1- and 5-year LT survival rates were 0.68% and 0, respectively, compared with 81% and 73%, respectively, after EPCS. In the 1300 unrandomized PCS patients, 50 (3.8%) were referred and 19 (1.5%) underwent LT. The 5-year survival rate was 53% compared with 72% for all 1300 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

If bleeding is permanently controlled, as occurred invariably following EPCS, cirrhotic patients with BEV seldom require LT. PCS is effective first-line and long-term treatment. Should LT be required in patients with PCS, although technically more demanding, numerous studies have shown that PCS does not increase mortality or complications. EST is not effective emergency or long-term therapy.

Emergency portacaval shunt versus rescue portacaval shunt in a randomized controlled trial of emergency treatment of acutely bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis--part 3

BACKGROUND

Emergency treatment of bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis is of singular importance because of the high mortality rate. Emergency portacaval shunt is rarely used today because of the belief, unsubstantiated by long-term randomized trials, that it causes frequent portal-systemic encephalopathy and liver failure. Consequently, portacaval shunt has been relegated solely to salvage therapy when endoscopic and pharmacologic therapies have failed.

QUESTION

Is the regimen of endoscopic sclerotherapy with rescue portacaval shunt for failure to control bleeding varices superior to emergency portacaval shunt? A unique opportunity to answer this question was provided by a randomized controlled trial of endoscopic sclerotherapy versus emergency portacaval shunt conducted from 1988 to 2005.

METHODS

Unselected consecutive cirrhotic patients with acute bleeding esophageal varices were randomized to endoscopic sclerotherapy (n = 106) or emergency portacaval shunt (n = 105). Diagnostic workup was completed and treatment was initiated within 8 h. Failure of endoscopic sclerotherapy was defined by strict criteria and treated by rescue portacaval shunt (n = 50) whenever possible. Ninety-six percent of patients had more than 10 years of follow-up or until death.

RESULTS

Comparison of emergency portacaval shunt and endoscopic sclerotherapy followed by rescue portacaval shunt showed the following differences in measurements of outcomes: (1) survival after 5 years (72% versus 22%), 10 years (46% versus 16%), and 15 years (46% versus 0%); (2) median post-shunt survival (6.18 versus 1.99 years); (3) mean requirements of packed red blood cell units (17.85 versus 27.80); (4) incidence of recurrent portal-systemic encephalopathy (15% versus 43%); (5) 5-year change in Child's class showing improvement (59% versus 19%) or worsening (8% versus 44%); (6) mean quality of life points in which lower is better (13.89 versus 27.89); and (7) mean cost of care per year ($39,200 versus $216,700). These differences were highly significant in favor of emergency portacaval shunt (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency portacaval shunt was strikingly superior to endoscopic sclerotherapy as well as to the combination of endoscopic sclerotherapy and rescue portacaval shunt in regard to all outcome measures, specifically bleeding control, survival, incidence of portal-systemic encephalopathy, improvement in liver function, quality of life, and cost of care. These results strongly support the use of emergency portacaval shunt as the first line of emergency treatment of bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis.

Acute esophageal variceal bleeding: Current strategies and new perspectives

Management of acute variceal bleeding has greatly improved over recent years. Available data indicates that general management of the bleeding cirrhotic patient by an experienced multidisciplinary team plays a major role in the final outcome of this complication. It is currently recommended to combine pharmacological and endoscopic therapies for the initial treatment of the acute bleeding. Vasoactive drugs (preferable somatostatin or terlipressin) should be started as soon as a variceal bleeding is suspected (ideally during transfer to hospital) and maintained afterwards for 2-5 d. After stabilizing the patient with cautious fluid and blood support, an emergency diagnostic endoscopy should be done and, as soon as a skilled endoscopist is available, an endoscopic variceal treatment (ligation as first choice, sclerotherapy if endoscopic variceal ligation not feasible) should be performed. Antibiotic prophylaxis must be regarded as an integral part of the treatment of acute variceal bleeding and should be started at admission and maintained for at least 7 d. In case of failure to control the acute bleeding, rescue therapies should be immediately started. Shunt therapies (especially transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt) are very effective at controlling treatment failures after an acute variceal bleeding. Therapeutic developments and increasing knowledge in the prognosis of this complication may allow optimization of the management strategy by adapting the different treatments to the expected risk of complications for each patient in the near future. Theoretically, this approach would allow the initiation of early aggressive treatments in high-risk patients and spare low-risk individuals unnecessary procedures. Current research efforts will hopefully clarify this hypothesis and help to further improve the outcomes of the severe complication of cirrhosis.

Refractory acute variceal bleeding: what to do next?

Current recommendations for the treatment of acute variceal bleeding (AVB) are to combine hemodynamic stabilization, antibiotic prophylaxis, pharmacologic agents, and endoscopic treatment. However, despite the application of the current gold-standard pharmacologic and endoscopic treatment, failure to control bleeding or early rebleed within 5 days still occurs in 15% to 20% of patients with AVB. In case of treatment failure of the acute bleeding episode, if bleeding is mild and the patient is hemodynamically stable, a second endoscopic therapy may be attempted. If this fails, or if bleeding is severe, it is usually controlled temporarily with balloon tamponade until a definitive derivative treatment is applied. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt is highly effective in this situation; however, despite the control of bleeding, a high proportion of these patients die of liver and multiorgan failure. Strategies intended to improve the prognosis of these patients should focus on identifying those high-risk patients in whom standard therapy is likely to fail, and who are therefore candidates for more aggressive therapies early after the development of AVB.

Endotipsitis-persistent infection of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: pathogenesis, clinical features and management

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is in widespread use for the decompression of portal pressure. The entity of persistent TIPS infection, also known as 'endotipsitis' is a rare but serious complication of TIPS insertion. The exact definition of 'endotipsitis' is still debated, but involves persistent bacteremia and fever together with either shunt occlusion, or vegetation, or bacteremia in the presence of a patent shunt, when other sources of bacteremia have been ruled out. To date, approximately 40 cases of 'endotipsitis' have been described, with predominance for male and alcoholic hepatitis patients. The clinical course is variable, but fever and chills are a constant feature. Bacteremia, can either occur early (<120 days) or late (>120 days) after stent insertion, with some cases occurring many years after the procedure. Although no predominant bacterial species have been described in 'endotipsitis', staphylococci and other Gram-positive bacteria are more commonly seen in early infection. The diagnosis of 'endotipsitis' is difficult and requires a high index of suspicion. A rigorous imaging work-up to rule out other sources of endovascular infection is usually required including ultrasonography, computed tomography and echocardiography. Because removal of the infected stent is impractical, treatment is empirical and based on a prolonged course of antibiotics. If eligible, some patients may be referred for liver transplantation. The use of prophylactic antibiotics during the initial TIPS procedure is controversial, and despite the lack of evidence, prophylaxis is the common practice. The aim of this review was to describe the definition, clinical course, diagnosis, pathogenesis, microbiology, treatment and outcome of endotipsitis.

What are the implications of the spontaneous spleno-renal shunts in liver cirrhosis?

Background

Although significant advances are expected to be made in the assessment of the portal hypertension-related complications, the prognostic role of spleno-renal shunts has not been fully explored so far. Clarifying this aspect could help tackle the life-treating events occurring in patients suffering from liver cirrhosis. The aim of the study was to analyze the relationships between the spleno-renal shunts presence at doppler ultrasound and the liver cirrhosis complications.

Methods

Design: eighty one patients out of 129 formed the study population (35 females). Chronic liver damage in these patients was caused by HCV (66), HBV (2), alcohol abuse (2) or unknown etiology, likely non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (11). Setting: two Liver Units of university/primary hospitals in Southern Italy. Main outcome measures: grading of esofageal varices; detection of ascites: assessment of hepatic encephalopathy; evaluation of liver cirrhosis severity; tracking hepatocellular carcinoma; doppler features of spleno-renal shunts and splenic flow velocity; spleen longitudinal diameter at sonography.

Results

The prevalence of spleno-renal shunts was 18.5%, without no difference concerning the etiology (HCV versus non-HCV, p = 0.870); the prevalence of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with spleno-renal shunts was superior to that of patients without them (Pearson Chi-square, p = 0.006, power of sample size 74%), also after adjustment for liver decompensation (p = 0.024). The median score of hepatic encephalopathy in patients with and without spleno-renal shunts was similar, i.e., 0 (range, 0-2) versus 0 (0 - 3), p = 0.67. The median splenic vein flow velocity in patients with spleno-renal shunts was significantly inferior to that of patients without them, i.e., 13 cm/sec (95% confidence intervals, 6-18) versus 21 cm/sec (17-24), p < 0.0001. By far the largest percentage of large esophageal varices was in patients without spleno-renal shunts (p = 0.005). In contrast, the frequency of ascites and hepatic encephalopathy severity was overlapping in the two groups. BMI values but not Child-Pugh's classification predicted spleno-renal shunts (Ors = 1.84, 95% confidence intervals = 1.28-2.64, p = 0.001 and 1.145, 95% confidence intervals = 0.77-1.51, p = 0.66).

Conclusion

Taking into consideration the relatively small sample size, patients with spleno-renal shunts are burdened by an increased incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. BMI predicted the spleno-renal shunts presence.

Randomized trial of emergency endoscopic sclerotherapy versus emergency portacaval shunt for acutely bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

The mortality rate of bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis is highest during the period of acute bleeding. This is a report of a randomized trial that compared endoscopic sclerotherapy (EST) with emergency portacaval shunt (EPCS) in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal hemorrhage.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 211 unselected consecutive patients with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding esophageal varices who required at least 2 U of blood transfusion were randomized to EST (n=106) or EPCS (n=105). Diagnostic workup was completed within 6 hours and EST or EPCS was initiated within 8 hours of initial contact. Longterm EST was performed according to a deliberate schedule. Ninety-six percent of patients underwent more than 10 years of followup, or until death.

RESULTS

The percent of patients in Child's risk classes were A, 27.5; B, 45.0; and C, 27.5. EST achieved permanent control of bleeding in only 20% of patients; EPCS permanently controlled bleeding in every patient (p< or =0.001). Requirement for blood transfusions was greater in the EST group than in the EPCS patients. Compared with EST, survival after EPCS was significantly higher at all time intervals and in all Child's classes (p< or =0.001). Recurrent episodes of portal-systemic encephalopathy developed in 35% of EST patients and 15% of EPCS patients (p< or =0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

EPCS permanently stopped variceal bleeding, rarely became occluded, was accomplished with a low incidence of portal-systemic encephalopathy, and compared with EST, produced greater longterm survival. The widespread practice of using surgical procedures mainly as salvage for failure of endoscopic therapy is not supported by the results of this trial (clinicaltrials.gov #NCT00690027).

Pathogenesis of hepatic encephalopathy and its prevention after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt

With the increasing use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), we have obtained a breakout progress in the therapy of acute esophageal and gastric-fundus variceal bleeding and refractory ascites. whereas the patency of stent and hepatic encephalopathy (or namely portal-systemic encephalopathy, PSE) after TIPS become two great problems for TIPS. The patency of stent has been improved greatly after the use of covered stent such as Viator stents or covered vascular stents. But the problem of hepatic encephalopathy has not been well solved. In this review, we try to explore the pathogenesis of hepatic encephalopathy and its prevention after TIPS.

The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)

The creation of an intrahepatic portosystemic shunt via a transjugular approach (TIPS) is an interventional radiological procedure used to treat the complications of portal hypertension. TIPS insertion is principally indicated to prevent or arrest variceal bleeding when medical or endoscopic treatments fail, and in the management refractory ascites. This review discusses the development and execution of the technique, with focus on its clinical efficacy. Patient selection, imaging surveillance, revision techniques, and complications are also discussed.