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

Splenectomy Combined with Endoscopic Variceal Ligation (EVL) versus EVL Alone for Secondary Prophylaxis of Variceal Bleeding in Hepatosplenic Schistosomiasis: A Retrospective Case-Control Study

Background

Hepatosplenic schistosomiasis (HSS) is one of the most common causes of portal hypertension in developing countries. Variceal bleeding is the most common cause of mortality during HSS. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of splenectomy associated with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) compared with EVL alone in preventing variceal bleeding in patients with HSS.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective, case–control study. Between January 2015 and December 2019, a total of 59 patients with HSS who had at least one variceal bleeding episode and received EVL with or without splenectomy were identified and stratified. In this case–control design, 22 patients had splenectomy + EVL (case group) and 37 patients had EVL alone (control group). The main endpoints were the rate of variceal rebleeding and the mortality rate between the two groups.

Results

The mean age of our patients was 39.92 ± 13.4 (19–75) years with a sex ratio of 1.8. The recurrence rate of variceal bleeding was significantly lower in the case group (splenectomy + EVL) than in the control group (EVL alone) (4.45% vs 27.2%, p = 0.041). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of mortality (4.54 vs 2.7%, p = 1.00).

Conclusion

Splenectomy combined with EVL was effective than EVL alone in preventing variceal rebleeding in patients with HSS.

Diagnosis and clinical management of hepatosplenic schistosomiasis: A scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Hepatosplenic schistosomiasis (HSS) is a disease caused by chronic infection with Schistosma spp. parasites residing in the mesenteric plexus; portal hypertension causing gastrointestinal bleeding is the most dangerous complication of this condition. HSS requires complex clinical management, but no specific guidelines exist. We aimed to provide a comprehensive picture of consolidated findings and knowledge gaps on the diagnosis and treatment of HSS.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We reviewed relevant original publications including patients with HSS with no coinfections, published in the past 40 years, identified through MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Treatment with praziquantel and HSS-associated pulmonary hypertension were not investigated. Of the included 60 publications, 13 focused on diagnostic aspects, 45 on therapeutic aspects, and 2 on both aspects. Results were summarized using effect direction plots. The most common diagnostic approaches to stratify patients based on the risk of variceal bleeding included the use of ultrasonography and platelet counts; on the contrary, evaluation and use of noninvasive tools to guide the choice of therapeutic interventions are lacking. Publications on therapeutic aspects included treatment with beta-blockers, local management of esophageal varices, surgical procedures, and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Overall, treatment approaches and measured outcomes were heterogeneous, and data on interventions for primary prevention of gastrointestinal bleeding and on the long-term follow-up after interventions were lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Most interventions have been developed on the basis of individual groups' experiences and almost never rigorously compared; furthermore, there is a lack of data regarding which parameters can guide the choice of intervention. These results highlight a dramatic need for the implementation of rigorous prospective studies with long-term follow-up in different settings to fill such fundamental gaps, still present for a disease affecting millions of patients worldwide.

Selective versus non‐selective shunts for the prevention of variceal rebleeding

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

To assess the benefits and harms of any type of selective shunt versus any type of non‐selective shunt for the prevention of oesophagogastric variceal rebleeding in people with portal hypertension.

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.