Primary prevention of variceal bleeding in people with oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

Endoscopic treatment for gastroesophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis: a survey comparing between developed and developing countries

BACKGROUND

In this survey, we compared endoscopists' approach to treatment of gastroesophageal varices (GOV) in patients with cirrhosis between developed and developing countries. The objective of this study was to undertake a comparative analysis of the approaches employed by endoscopists in developed and developing countries with regard to the treatment of GOV in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

Between Jan 2019 to Aug 2019, we administered a questionnaire-based online survey internationally via e-mail. A total of 148 endoscopists from five countries were invited to participate in the survey, and 93 responses were received (response rate: 62.8%). The questionnaire covered several aspects: characteristics of the respondents, primary prophylactics, endoscopic therapy, and secondary prophylactics for acute variceal bleeding (AVB). The answers were compared between developed and developing countries using the chi-square test. For all tests, a P value of < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between developed and developing countries in practice settings (P = 0.001), the years of independent gastroenterology or endoscopic practice (P = 0.036), treating non-hemorrhagic large gastric varices with medicine (P = 0.019), and selection of preferred initial endoscopic therapy for active gastric fundic variceal bleeding (P = 0.015). Notably, developed and developing countries did not significantly differ in terms of treatment of non-hemorrhagic esophageal varices (P = 0.076), initial endoscopic therapy for active gastric cardia variceal bleeding (P = 0.272), timing of secondary prophylaxis (P = 0.104), timing of endoscopy (P = 0.073), measures for secondary prophylaxis (P = 0.166), and basis for the selection of management preferences (P = 0.278).

CONCLUSION

There were some differences in the practice of endoscopists for GOV in patients with cirrhosis between developing and developed countries. We speculate that these differences may affect the costs, management of primary bleeding, and chances of rebleeding in GOV. Furthermore, the equipment and technical conditions of different hospitals may also significantly influence the endoscopist's choice of treatment modality. We hope that future studies will place greater emphasis on this aspect as continuing education of and providing updated equipment to endoscopists are of paramount importance.

[Interpretation of the Guidelines for Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Diagnosis and Treatment of Liver Cirrhosis]

Liver cirrhosis is the terminal stage of various acute and chronic liver diseases and ranks 11th among the most common causes of death worldwide. In recent years, with the progress of clinical research, there has been increasing support from evidence-based medicine for the treatment of liver cirrhosis with integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine. In 2023, the Chinese Association of Integrative Medicine, the China Association of Chinese Medicine, and the Chinese Medical Association jointly released the first evidence-based guideline in this field, the Guidelines for Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Diagnosis and Treatment of Liver Cirrhosis. By combining the latest research at home and abroad, this article provides a detailed interpretation of the highlights in the guideline, including traditional Chinese medicine etiology and pathogenesis, diagnostic progress, disease and syndrome combination, stage-based diagnostic mode, and treatment strategies of integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine. The aim is to enhance understanding of this guideline among health workers and promote the improvement of the diagnosis and treatment of liver cirrhosis with integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine.

Comparative Effectiveness of Endoscopic Versus Pharmacological Interventions for Variceal Rebleeding in Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review

Variceal bleeding is a critical complication in cirrhotic patients, significantly increasing morbidity and mortality risks, particularly after an initial bleeding episode. This systematic review evaluates and compares the effectiveness of endoscopic and pharmacological interventions in preventing variceal rebleeding. A comprehensive search of major databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science, was conducted to identify studies published within the past decade. The review focused on randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, and meta-analyses that assessed the efficacy and safety of these treatments in adult cirrhotic patients with a history of variceal bleeding. The findings suggest that endoscopic interventions, such as band ligation and early transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement, effectively reduce immediate rebleeding rates and improve short-term survival, particularly in high-risk patients with advanced cirrhosis. In contrast, pharmacological strategies, including beta-blockers and vasoactive agents, provide effective long-term management with fewer adverse events, especially in patients with milder liver disease. The review underscores the importance of a personalized treatment approach that integrates both endoscopic and pharmacological therapies to optimize outcomes and reduce the burden of rebleeding. It also highlights the need for further high-quality research to clarify the long-term benefits, impact on quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of these interventions. These insights form the basis for refining clinical guidelines and improving patient-centered care in the management of variceal rebleeding.

Carvedilol Versus Other Nonselective Beta Blockers for Variceal Bleeding Prophylaxis and Death: A Network Meta-analysis

Background and Aims

We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis (NWM) to examine comparative effectiveness of non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) on prophylaxis of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding (GVB) and mortality benefit.

Methods

MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE databases were searched for eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from inception to July 3, 2021. Outcomes of interest included primary/secondary prophylaxis of GVB, failure to achieve hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) decremental response, liver-related and all-cause mortality. A Bayesian NWM was performed to derive relative risk (RR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The ranking probability of each NSBB was assessed by surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).

Results

Thirty-three RCTs including 3,188 cirrhosis patients with gastroesophageal varices were included. Compared with placebo, nadolol ranked first for reducing variceal bleeding [RR:0.25, (95% CrI:0.11-0.51); SUCRA:0.898], followed by carvedilol [RR:0.33, (95% CrI: 0.11-0.88); SUCRA:0.692] and propranolol [RR:0.52, (95% CrI:0.37-0.75); SUCRA:0.405]. Carvedilol was more effective than propranolol in achieving HVPG decremental response [RR:0.43, (95% CrI: 0.26-0.69)]. Carvedilol ranked first for reducing all-cause mortality [RR: 0.32, (95% CrI:0.17-0.57); SUCRA:0.963), followed by nadolol [RR:0.48, (95% CI:0.29-0.77); SUCRA:0.688], and propranolol [RR:0.77, (95% CI:0.58-1.02); SUCRA: 0.337]. Similar findings were observed for liver-related mortality. Carvedilol ranked the safest. The RR of adverse events was 4.38, (95% CrI:0.33-161.4); SUCRA:0.530, followed by propranolol [RR: 7.54, (95% CrI:1.90-47.89); SUCRA:0.360], and nadolol [RR: 18.24, (95% CrI:91.51-390.90); SUCRA:0.158].

Conclusions

Carvedilol is the preferred NSBB with better survival benefit and lower occurrence of adverse events among patients with gastroesophageal varices.

Beta-blockers in patients with liver cirrhosis: Pragmatism or perfection?

With increasing decompensation, hyperdynamic circulatory disturbance occurs in liver cirrhosis despite activation of vasoconstrictors. Here, the concept of a therapy with non-selective beta-blockers was established decades ago. They lower elevated portal pressure, protect against variceal hemorrhage, and may also have pleiotropic immunomodulatory effects. Recently, the beneficial effect of carvedilol, which blocks alpha and beta receptors, has been highlighted. Carvedilol leads to "biased-signaling" via recruitment of beta-arrestin. This effect and its consequences have not been sufficiently investigated in patients with liver cirrhosis. Also, a number of questions remain open regarding the expression of beta-receptors and its intracellular signaling and the respective consequences in the intra- and extrahepatic tissue compartments. Despite the undisputed role of non-selective beta-blockers in the treatment of liver cirrhosis, we still can improve the knowledge as to when and how beta-blockers should be used in which patients.

Cataclysmic Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: Dreaded Complication of Metastatic Breast Cancer

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) from variceal rupture is a serious condition that can be life-threatening in some cases. Usually, the main cause is portal hypertension in cirrhosis, but other etiologies like liver metastases can be also involved. We present the case of a 64-year-old woman, with a history of metastatic breast cancer, who was admitted for a massive UGIB due to ruptured esophageal varices related to portal hypertension.

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.

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding in people with oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years. There are several different treatments to prevent bleeding, including: beta-blockers, endoscopic sclerotherapy, and variceal band ligation. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers to December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previous bleeding from oesophageal varices and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation or previously received prophylactic treatment for oesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 randomised clinical trials (6653 participants) in the review. Sixty trials (6212 participants) provided data for one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those at high risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices. The follow-up in the trials that reported outcomes ranged from 6 months to 60 months. All but one of the trials were at high risk of bias. The interventions compared included beta-blockers, no active intervention, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates, nitrates, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, and portocaval shunt. Overall, 21.2% of participants who received non-selective beta-blockers ('beta-blockers') - the reference treatment (chosen because this was the most common treatment compared in the trials) - died during 8-month to 60-month follow-up. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates all had lower mortality versus no active intervention (beta-blockers: HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.67; direct comparison HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.42 to 0.83; 10 trials, 1200 participants; variceal band ligation: HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.74; direct comparison HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.12 to 2.14; 3 trials, 355 participants; sclerotherapy: HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.85; direct comparison HR 0.61, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.90; 18 trials, 1666 participants; beta-blockers plus nitrates: HR 0.41, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.85; no direct comparison). No trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation had a higher number of serious adverse events (number of events) than beta-blockers (rate ratio 10.49, 95% CrI 2.83 to 60.64; 1 trial, 168 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers plus nitrates had a higher number of 'any adverse events (number of participants)' than beta-blockers alone (OR 3.41, 95% CrI 1.11 to 11.28; 1 trial, 57 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, adverse events (number of events) were higher in sclerotherapy than in beta-blockers (rate ratio 2.49, 95% CrI 1.53 to 4.22; direct comparison rate ratio 2.47, 95% CrI 1.27 to 5.06; 2 trials, 90 participants), and in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.08 to 2.76; 1 trial, 140 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was lower in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.04 to 0.71; 1 trial, 173 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was higher in nitrates than beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 6.40, 95% CrI 1.58 to 47.42; 1 trial, 52 participants). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates may decrease mortality compared to no intervention in people with high-risk oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis and no previous history of bleeding. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in a higher number of serious adverse events than beta-blockers. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of beta-blockers versus variceal band ligation on variceal bleeding. The evidence also indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in most of the remaining comparisons.

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

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for secondary prevention according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), 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.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.