Long-term follow-up of hemodynamic responders to pharmacological therapy after variceal bleeding

Carvedilol Achieves Higher Hemodynamic Response and Lower Rebleeding Rates Than Propranolol in Secondary Prophylaxis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Carvedilol induces stronger decreases in hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) than conventional nonselective β-blockers (ie, propranolol). Limited data exist on the efficacy of carvedilol in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Patients undergoing paired HVPG measurements for guiding secondary prophylaxis with either carvedilol or propranolol were included in this retrospective analysis. All patients also underwent band ligation. Changes in HVPG and systemic hemodynamics were compared between the 2 groups. Long-term follow-up data on rebleeding, acute kidney injury, nonbleeding decompensation, and liver-related death were analyzed applying competing risk regression.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients (carvedilol/propranolol, n = 45/42) were included in our study. The median baseline HVPG was 21 mm Hg (interquartile range, 18-24 mm Hg), and 39.1%/48.3%/12.6% had Child-Turcotte-Pugh A/B/C cirrhosis, respectively. Upon nonselective β-blocker initiation, HVPG decreased more strongly in carvedilol users (median relative decrease, -20% [interquartile range: -29% to -10%] vs -11% [-22% to -5%] for propranolol; P = .027), who also achieved chronic HVPG response more often (53.3% vs 28.6%; P = .034). Cumulative incidences for rebleeding (Gray test, P = .027) and liver-related death (P = .036) were significantly lower in patients taking carvedilol compared with propranolol. Notably, ascites development/worsening also was observed less commonly in carvedilol patients (P = .012). Meanwhile, acute kidney injury rates did not differ between the 2 groups (P = .255). Stratifying patients by HVPG response status yielded similar results. The prognostic value of carvedilol intake was confirmed in competing risk regression models.

CONCLUSIONS

Carvedilol induces more marked reductions in HVPG than propranolol in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and thus is associated with lower rates of rebleeding, liver-related death, and further nonbleeding decompensation.

The Portosystemic Shunt for the Control of Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Patients: Past and Present

Based on an experience of more than 50 years in the treatment of portal hypertension (PHT), the authors review and analyze the evolution of the surgical portocaval shunt (PCS). We would like to provide an insight into the past of PCS, in order to compare it with the current state of the treatment of PHT complications. As a landmark of the past, we shall present statistics of more than 500 cases of PHT operated between 1968 and 1983. From this group, 238 patients underwent surgical portocaval shunting during a fifteen-year period. The behavior of the portal hemodynamics following PCS was studied and the postoperative decrease in portal pressure (PP), as well as the residual PP, were recorded. The portal manometric determinations were made by electronic recordings using the Hellige device and direct intraoperative recordings through the catheterization of a ramus in the portal area. The results of PCS are superposable, in terms of hemodynamic efficiency, with those of the intrahepatic shunt (TIPS-transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt). The authors discuss the current place of PCS, in obvious decline in comparison with the situation 50 years ago. The current methods of controlling variceal bleeding represent obvious progress. PCS remains with very limited indications, in specific situations when the other therapeutic methods have failed or are not recommended.

Spleen and Liver Stiffness Evaluation by ARFI Imaging: A Reliable Tool for a Short-Term Monitoring of Portal Hypertension?

BACKGROUND

Assessment of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is the most reliable, though invasive method for evaluation of portal hypertension. Non-invasive, elastography-based techniques are well established in diagnosis, but not in monitoring of portal hypertension. The aim of our prospective study was to determine the value of acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) elastography technique of the liver and spleen in diagnosis and monitoring of portal hypertension.

METHODS

We prospectively assessed portal hypertension by HVPG and corresponding elastography of the liver and spleen in 31 patients with liver cirrhosis and an indication for primary prophylaxis by non-cardio selective beta-blockers. Investigations were performed at baseline and a follow-up visit after 6-8 weeks. To address the known large variability of values for spleen elastography, well-defined corresponding areas in the spleen were used for baseline and follow-up elastography. Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC-ROC values for both spleen and liver elastography monitoring of portal hypertension were calculated.

RESULTS

Liver but not spleen elastography significantly correlated with HVPG results and was suitable for initial evaluation of portal hypertension. However, changes in HVPG results did not show any correlation with alterations of ARFI values from baseline to follow-up visits both for liver and spleen elastography. Spleen stiffness results were not homogeneous across the whole organ differing significantly between the upper, hilar, and bottom placed investigation areas.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective study ARFI-based assessment of liver elastography showed itself suitable for initial assessment but not for monitoring of portal hypertension. Spleen elastography was not appropriate for both, evaluation and monitoring of portal hypertension. A possible explanation for this new data that are in some contrast to previously published results is the degree of portal hypertension in our study, a comparatively short follow-up period, and well-defined investigation areas for spleen elastography in repetitive ARFI investigations. This trial is registered with NCT03315767.

Management of the major complications of cirrhosis: Beyond guidelines

Along with a growing understanding of the pathophysiology of cirrhosis and its complications, new therapies and management strategies have emerged in recent years. Many of these advances have helped inform the current EASL clinical practice guidelines¹ on the management of some of the key complications of cirrhosis, such as ascites, variceal bleeding and infection. However, there are still some aspects of management where the evidence base is less clear, and/or where opinions amongst practitioners remain divided. Some of these more controversial areas are explored in this section, wherein we present evidence culminating in a suggested management approach based on expert opinion and extending beyond the current guidelines.

Prevention of First Decompensation in Advanced Chronic Liver Disease

The first occurrence of decompensation constitutes a watershed moment in the natural history of chronic liver disease; it denotes a point of no return in a relevant proportion of patients. Preventive strategies may profoundly decrease cirrhosis-related morbidity and mortality. Removing the primary etiologic factor and cofactors, is key; however, a considerable proportion of patients require additional etiology-independent treatment strategies that target important pathomechanisms promoting decompensation (ie, portal hypertension and systemic inflammation). This article explains the importance of preventing first decompensation and summarizes the evidence for etiologic and etiology-independent (most important, nonselective beta-blockers and statins) therapies.

Liver stiffness assessment as an alternative to hepatic venous pressure gradient for predicting rebleed after acute variceal bleed: A proof-of-concept study

Background and Aim

Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), although an important determinant in predicting rebleeding after an episode of acute variceal bleed (AVB), is seldom utilized in clinical practice. We aimed to study the role of liver stiffness measurement (LSM) after variceal bleeding as a potential noninvasive predictor of rebleed.

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of clinical trial of patients undergoing HVPG (postbleed HVPG) and LSM (postbleed LSM) assessment within 3–5 days of index AVB. HVPG response was assessed after 4 weeks of pharmacotherapy. Comparative assessment of long‐term rebleeding rates stratified using postbleed LSM, postbleed HVPG, and HVPG response was performed. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was conducted to identify the most appropriate tool for routine use.

Results

Long‐term clinical and HVPG response data were available for 48 patients post‐AVB, of whom 45 patients had valid postbleed LSM. Rebleeding occurred in 13 (28%) patients over a median follow‐up of 4 years with no early rebleeds. Postbleed LSM >30 kPa and baseline HVPG >15 mm Hg were optimal cutoffs for identifying patients at high risk of rebleeding. Time‐dependent receiver operating characteristic curves and competing risk analysis accounting for death showed similar discriminative values for all three stratification tools. At usual risk thresholds, HVPG response had maximum benefit on DCA followed by postbleed LSM. On DCA, 50–60 additional HVPGs were required to detect one additional patient at high risk of rebleed.

Conclusion

Liver stiffness measurement during AVB can potentially be used as an alternative to portal pressure indices in decompensated cirrhosis to identify those at high risk of late‐onset rebleed.

Outcomes of Portal Pressure-Guided Therapy in Decompensated Cirrhosis With Index Variceal Bleed in Asian Cohort

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hemodynamic response to pharmacotherapy improves survival in patients with cirrhosis post variceal bleeding, but long-term outcomes remain unexplored especially in this part of the world. We aimed to study the long-term impact of portal pressure reduction on liver-related outcomes after index variceal bleed.

METHODS

Patients with hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) more than 12 mm Hg after index variceal bleed were given non-selective beta-blockers in combination with variceal band ligation. HVPG response was assessed after 4 weeks. Patients were followed up for rebleed events, survival, additional decompensation events and safety outcomes. Rebleed and other decompensations were compared using competing risks analysis, taking death as competing event, and survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients (29 responders and 19 non-responders) were followed up for a median duration of 45 (24-56) months. Rebleeding rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were 10.3%, 20.7% and 20.7% in responders and 15.8%, 44.7% and 51.1% in non-responders, respectively (Gray's test, P = 0.044). Survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were 89.7%, 72.1% and 51.9% in responders and 89.5%, 44% and 37.7% in non-responders, respectively (log-rank test, P = 0.1). Both severity of liver disease (MELD score, multivariate sub-distributional hazards ratio: 1.166 [1.014-1.341], P = 0.030) and HVPG non-response (multivariate sub-distributional hazards ratio: 2.476 [1.87-7.030], P = 0.045) predicted rebleeding risk while survival was dependent only on severity of liver disease (MELD > 12, multivariate hazards ratio: 2.36 [1.04-5.38], P = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

Baseline severity of liver disease predicted survival and rebleed in these patients. Hemodynamic response, although associated with lower rebleeding rate, had limited impact on survival.

Long-term Outcomes with Carvedilol versus Propranolol in Patients with Index Variceal Bleed: 6-year Follow-up Study

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

There is limited information on comparison of clinical outcomes with carvedilol for secondary prophylaxis following acute variceal bleed (AVB) when compared with propranolol. We report long-term clinical and safety outcomes of a randomised controlled trial comparing carvedilol with propranolol with respect to reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) in patients after AVB.

METHODS

We conducted a post-hoc analysis of patients recruited in an open-label randomized controlled trial comparing carvedilol and propranolol following AVB, and estimated long-term rates of rebleed, survival, additional decompensation events and safety outcomes. Rebleed and other decompensations were compared using competing risks analysis, taking death as competing event, and survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients (25 taking carvedilol; 23 propranolol) were followed up for 6 years from randomization. More number of patients on carvedilol had HVPG response when compared with those taking propranolol (72%- carvedilol versus 47.8% propranolol, p = 0.047). Comparable 1-year and 3-year rates of rebleed (16.0% and 24.0% for carvedilol versus 8.9% and 36.7% for propranolol; p = 0.457) and survival (94.7% and 89.0% for carvedilol versus 100.0% and 79.8% for propranolol; p = 0.76) were obtained. New/worsening ascites was more common in those receiving propranolol (69.5% vs 40%; p = 0.04). Other clinical decompensations and complications of liver disease occurred at comparable rates between two groups. Drug-related adverse-events were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite higher degree of HVPG response, long-term clinical, survival and safety outcomes in carvedilol are similar to those of propranolol in patients with decompensated cirrhosis after index variceal bleed with the exception of ascites that developed less frequently in patients with carvedilol.

Application of Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient to Predict Prognosis in Cirrhotic Patients with a Low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score

: Background/aim: We aimed to derive a model representing the dynamic status of cirrhosis and to discriminate patients with poor prognosis even if the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score is low.

METHODS

This study retrospectively enrolled 700 cirrhotic patients with a MELD score of less than 20 who underwent hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement. A model named H6C score (= HVPG + 6 × CTP score) to predict overall survival was derived and internal and external validations were conducted with the derivation and validation cohorts.

RESULTS

The H6C score using the HVPG was developed based on a multivariate Cox regression analysis. The H6C score showed a great predictive power for overall survival with a time-dependent AUC of 0.733, which was superior to that of a MELD of 0.602. In patients with viral etiology, the performance of the H6C score was much improved with a time-dependent AUC of 0.850 and was consistently superior to that of the MELD (0.748). Patients with an H6C score below 45 demonstrated an excellent overall survival with a 5-year survival rate of 91.5%. Whereas, patients with an H6C score above 64 showed a dismal prognosis with a 5-year survival rate of 51.1%. The performance of the H6C score was further verified to be excellent in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSION

This new model using the HVPG provides an excellent predictive power in cirrhotic patients, especially with viral etiology. In patients with H6C above 64, it would be wise to consider early liver transplantation to positively impact long-term survival, even when the MELD score is low.

Esophageal collateral veins in predicting esophageal variceal recurrence and rebleeding after endoscopic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic treatment is recommended for the management of esophageal varices. However, variceal recurrence or rebleeding is common after endoscopic variceal eradication. Our study aimed to systematically evaluate the prevalence of esophageal collateral veins (ECVs) and the association of ECVs with recurrence of esophageal varices or rebleeding from esophageal varices after endoscopic treatment.

METHODS

We searched the relevant literature through the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Prevalence of paraesophageal veins (para-EVs), periesophageal veins (peri-EVs), and perforating veins (PVs) were pooled. Risk ratio (RR) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for cohort studies and case-control studies, respectively. A random-effects model was employed. Heterogeneity among studies was calculated.

RESULTS

Among the 532 retrieved papers, 28 were included. The pooled prevalence of para-EVs, peri-EVs, and PVs in patients with esophageal varices was 73%, 88%, and 54%, respectively. The pooled prevalence of para-EVs and PVs in patients with recurrence of esophageal varices was 87% and 62%, respectively. The risk for recurrence of esophageal varices was significantly increased in patients with PVs (OR = 9.79, 95% CI: 1.95-49.22, P = 0.006 for eight case-control studies), but not in those with para-EVs (OR = 4.26, 95% CI: 0.38-38.35, P = 0.24 for four case-control studies; RR = 1.81, 95% CI: 0.83-3.97, P = 0.14 for three cohort studies). Patients with para-EVs had a significantly higher incidence of rebleeding from esophageal varices (RR = 13.00, 95% CI: 2.43-69.56, P = 0.003 for two cohort studies). Statistically significant heterogeneity was notable across the meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

ECVs are common in patients with esophageal varices. Identification of ECVs could be helpful for predicting the recurrence of esophageal varices or rebleeding from esophageal varices after endoscopic treatment.

Precision medicine in variceal bleeding: Are we there yet?

Variceal bleeding is one of the most feared complications of portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis because of its deleterious impact on prognosis. Adequate management of patients at risk of developing variceal bleeding includes the prevention of the first episode of variceal bleeding and rebleeding, and is crucial in modifying prognosis. The presence of clinically significant portal hypertension is the main factor determining the risk of development of varices and other liver-related decompensations; therefore, it should be carefully screened for and monitored. Treating patients with clinically significant portal hypertension based on their individual risk of portal hypertension-related bleeding undoubtedly improves prognosis. The evaluation of liver haemodynamics and liver function can stratify patients according to their risk of bleeding and are no question useful tools to guide therapy in an individualised manner. That said, recent data support the idea that tailoring therapy to patient characteristics may effectively impact on prognosis and increase survival in all clinical scenarios. This review will focus on evaluating the available evidence supporting the use of individual risk characteristics for clinical decision-making and their impact on clinical outcome and survival. In primary prophylaxis, identification and treatment of patients with clinically significant portal hypertension improves decompensation-free survival. In the setting of acute variceal bleeding, the risk of failure and rebleeding can be easily predicted, allowing for early escalation of treatment (i.e. pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt) which can improve survival in appropriate candidates. Stratifying the risk of recurrent variceal bleeding based on liver function and haemodynamic response to non-selective beta-blockers allows for tailored treatment, thereby increasing survival and avoiding adverse events.

Pathophysiological-based treatments of complications of cirrhosis

Detailed knowledge and understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms and changes in hepatic and splanchnic function leading to the development of haemodynamic changes and portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis are essential since it guides the search for targets to ameliorate liver-related abnormalities. Recent research has focused on the gut-liver axis, changes in intestinal permeability, translocation of bacterial products, and inflammation as important drivers of haemodynamic alterations and thereby targets for treatment. Additionally, treatment strategies should focus on microbiotic modulation, antiangiogenics, anti-inflammatory strategies, and modulation of bile acid metabolism. This paper aims to review contemporary pathophysiological-based treatment principles of the major complications of cirrhosis and portal hypertension and future targets for treatment.

Lowering Portal Pressure Improves Outcomes of Patients With Cirrhosis, With or Without Ascites: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In unselected patients with cirrhosis, those with reductions in hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) to below a defined threshold (responders) have a reduced risk of variceal hemorrhage (VH) and death. We performed a meta-analysis to compare this effect in patients with vs without ascites.

METHODS

We collected data from 15 studies of primary or secondary prophylaxis of VH that reported data on VH and death in responders vs nonresponders. We included studies in which data on ascites at baseline and on other relevant outcomes during follow-up evaluation were available. We performed separate meta-analyses for patients with vs without ascites.

RESULTS

Of the 1113 patients included in the studies, 968 patients (87%) had been treated with nonselective β-blockers. In 993 patients (89%), HVPG response was defined as a decrease of more than 20% from baseline (>10% in 11% of patients) or to less than 12 mm Hg. In the 661 patients without ascites, responders (n = 329; 50%) had significantly lower odds of events (ascites, VH, or encephalopathy) than nonresponders (odds ratio [OR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22-0.56). Odds of death or liver transplantation were also significantly lower among responders than nonresponders (OR, 0.50, 95% CI, 0.32-0.78). In the 452 patients with ascites, responders (n = 188; 42%) had significantly lower odds of events (VH, refractory ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, or hepatorenal syndrome) than nonresponders (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16-0.43). Overall, odds of death or liver transplantation were lower among responders (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29-0.75). No heterogeneity was observed among studies.

CONCLUSIONS

In a meta-analysis of clinical trials, we found that patients with cirrhosis with and without ascites who respond to treatment with nonselective β-blockers (based on reductions in HVPG) have a reduced risk of events, death, or liver transplantation.

The predictive value of baseline hepatic venous pressure gradient for variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients receiving secondary prevention

BACKGROUND

Baseline hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) has been applied for prediction of variceal rebleeding in patients after acute variceal bleeding. However, for patients receiving secondary prevention, there still lacks evidence about the predictive performance of baseline-HVPG for rebleeding. This study aims to investigate the predictive value of baseline-HVPG for variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients receiving secondary prevention.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 122 patients with cirrhosis accepting secondary prevention of variceal rebleeding in a university hospital. All the included patients had HVPG measurements before rebleeding and had at least 1-year follow-up after HVPG measurement unless the rebleeding occurred. The rebleeding rate in patients with different HVPG levels and time-dependent predictive performance of baseline-HVPG were analysed. A Cox regression model and P for trend were used to assess the rebleeding risk.

RESULTS

Variceal rebleeding occurred in 22 (18.0%) patients during 1-year follow-up. No significant difference was observed in rebleeding rate between patients with HVPG <16 mmHg and HVPG ≥16 mmHg (17.91% vs. 26.41%, P=0.200). A decreasing trend was observed in area under the curve of HVPG for predicting rebleeding by time. The multivariate Cox model showed an overall decreasing trend in hazard ratio of rebleeding (vs. patients with HVPG <12 mmHg) for patients with 12≤ HVPG <16 mmHg, 16≤ HVPG <20 mmHg and HVPG ≥20 mmHg; besides, an increasing P for trend was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

A single baseline-HVPG measurement was insufficient for predicting rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis who received secondary prevention.

Beneficial and harmful effects of nonselective beta blockade on acute kidney injury in liver transplant candidates

Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) have played an important role in the prevention of portal hypertensive bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. However, recent studies have suggested that NSBBs may be harmful in some patients with end-stage liver disease. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the association between use of NSBB and the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). We conducted a nested case-control study in a cohort of liver transplant wait-list registrants. Each patient with AKI was matched to a control by the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Na score, age, serum creatinine, and follow-up duration. Out of a total of 2361 wait-list registrants, 205 patients developed AKI after a median follow-up duration of 18.2 months. When compared with matched controls, ascites (79.0% versus 51.7%) and non-Caucasian race (16.6% versus 7.8%) were more common among the cases. The frequency of NSBB use was higher among the cases than controls, albeit insignificantly (45.9% versus 37.1%; P = 0.08). In multivariate analyses, the impact of nonselective beta blockade on the development of AKI was dependent on the presence of ascites: nonselective beta blockade in patients with ascites significantly increased the risk of AKI (hazard ratio [HR], 3.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-6.95), whereas in patients without ascites, NSBB use reduced it (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.60). Potential benefits and harms of a NSBB in terms of AKI depend on the presence of ascites in liver transplant candidates. NSBB therapy in patients with cirrhosis may need to be individualized. Liver Transplantation 23 733-740 2017 AASLD.

A randomized trial to assess whether portal pressure guided therapy to prevent variceal rebleeding improves survival in cirrhosis

Monitoring the hemodynamic response of portal pressure (PP) to drug therapy accurately stratifies the risk of variceal rebleeding (VRB). We assessed whether guiding therapy with hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) monitoring may improve survival by preventing VRB. Patients with cirrhosis with controlled variceal bleeding were randomized to an HVPG-guided therapy group (N = 84) or to a control group (N = 86). In both groups, HVPG and acute β-blocker response were evaluated at baseline and HVPG measurements were repeated at 2-4 weeks to determine chronic response. In the HVPG-guided group, acute responders were treated with nadolol and acute nonresponders with nadolol+nitrates. Chronic nonresponders received nadolol+prazosin and had a third HVPG study. Ligation sessions were repeated until response was achieved. The control group was treated with nadolol+nitrates+ligation. Between-group baseline characteristics were similar. During long-term follow-up (median of 24 months), mortality was lower in the HVPG-guided therapy group than in the control group (29% vs. 43%; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35-0.99). Rebleeding occurred in 19% versus 31% of patients, respectively (HR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.29-0.98), and further decompensation of cirrhosis occurred in 52% versus 72% (HR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.46-0.99). The survival probability was higher with HVPG-guided therapy than in controls, both in acute (HR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.32-1.08) and chronic nonresponders (HR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.23-0.99). HVPG-guided patients had a greater reduction of HVPG and a lower final value than controls (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

HVPG monitoring, by stratifying risk and targeting therapy, improves the survival achieved with currently recommended treatment to prevent VRB using β-blockers and ligation. HVPG-guided therapy achieved a greater reduction in PP, which may have contributed to reduce the risk of rebleeding and of further decompensation of cirrhosis, thus contributing to a better survival. (Hepatology 2017;65:1693-1707).

Addition of Simvastatin to Standard Therapy for the Prevention of Variceal Rebleeding Does Not Reduce Rebleeding but Increases Survival in Patients With Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The combination of β-blockers and band ligation is the standard approach to prevent variceal rebleeding, but bleeding recurs and mortality is high. The lipid-lowering drug simvastatin decreases portal pressure, improves hepatocellular function, and might reduce liver fibrosis. We assessed whether adding simvastatin to standard therapy could reduce rebleeding and death after variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, double-blind, parallel trial of 158 patients with cirrhosis receiving standard prophylaxis to prevent rebleeding (a β-blocker and band ligation) in Spain from October 2010 through October 2013. Within 10 days of bleeding, subjects were randomly assigned, but stratified by Child-Pugh class of A or B vs C, to groups given simvastatin (20 mg/d the first 15 days, 40 mg/d thereafter; n = 69) or placebo (n = 78). Patients were followed for as long as 24 months. The primary end point was a composite of rebleeding and death, and main secondary end points were the individual components of the composite (death and rebleeding).

RESULTS

The primary end point was met by 30 of 78 patients in the placebo group and 22 of 69 in the simvastatin group (P = .423). Seventeen patients in the placebo group died (22%) vs 6 patients in the simvastatin group (9%) (hazard ratio for adding simvastatin to therapy = 0.39; 95% confidence interval: 0.15-0.99; P = .030). Simvastatin did not increase survival of patients with Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis. Rebleeding occurred in 28% of patients in the placebo group and 25% in the simvastatin group (P = .583). Serious adverse events occurred in 53% of patients in the placebo group and 49% in the simvastatin group (P = .752); the percentages of serious adverse events related to therapy were 11% in the placebo group vs 8% in the in the simvastatin group (P = .599). Two patients in the simvastatin group, each with advanced liver disease, developed rhabdomyolysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized controlled trial, addition of simvastatin to standard therapy did not reduce rebleeding, but was associated with a survival benefit for patients with Child-Pugh class A or B cirrhosis. Survival was not the primary end point of the study, so these results require validation. The incidence of rhabdomyolysis in patients receiving 40 mg/d simvastatin was higher than expected. European Clinical Trial Database ID: EUDRACT 2009-016500-24; ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01095185.

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.

Measurement of portal pressure

Portal pressure is estimated through measuring the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). The main clinical applications of HVPG measurements include diagnosis, classification, and monitoring of portal hypertension, risk stratification, identification of candidates for liver resection, and monitoring efficacy of β-adrenergic blockers. Clinically significant portal hypertension is defined as an HVPG of 10 mm Hg or greater. Patients who experience a reduction in the HVPG of 20% or greater or to lower than 12 mm Hg in response to β-blocker therapy have a markedly decreased risk of bleeding (or rebleeding), ascites, and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, resulting in improved survival rates.

Beta-blockers in portal hypertension: new developments and controversies

There are many studies investigating the role of non-selective beta-blockers in portal hypertension. Satisfactory reduction in portal pressure is possible in a third to half of patients with propranolol and nadolol, although combining these drugs with nitrates may be more effective. Carvedilol is a more potent agent than propranolol in reducing portal pressure, particularly in non-responders, and is better tolerated. All these drugs have been studied in primary and secondary prophylaxis, sometimes in combination with band ligation and/or nitrates. There is some evidence to support combining these agents with band ligation, despite a lack of survival benefit and increased adverse events. Hemodynamic monitoring can help select non-responders who may benefit from additional therapies such as band ligation, as lack of response is associated with worse outcomes. Propranolol should be used with caution in patients with refractory ascites, although the current evidence is not of sufficient quality to justify not using these drugs in such situations. Beta-blockers have been shown to reduce bacterial translocation and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis.

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.

Detection of early portal hypertension with routine data and liver stiffness in patients with asymptomatic liver disease: a prospective study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Detecting portal hypertension (PH) before the development of varices is important for prognosis and for designing interventional studies. None of the available strategies is used in practice. We evaluated a sequential screening-diagnostic strategy based on clinical data and transient elastography (TE) to detect PH in asymptomatic outpatients with liver disease.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with chronic liver disease and no previous diagnosis of PH were screened by TE. Patients with liver stiffness (LS) ⩾ 13.6 kPa were further evaluated by endoscopy and hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). For analysis, patients were classified in 3 groups: group A, platelets ⩾ 150,000/mm(3), normal abdominal ultrasound; group B, platelets <150,000/mm(3), normal ultrasound; group C, platelets <150,000/mm(3), abnormal ultrasound (splenomegaly, nodular liver surface).

RESULTS

250 patients were evaluated (69% group A, 20% group B, 11% group C). In 9% elastography was non-valid. LS ⩾ 13.6 was found in 54 patients (8% A, 43% B, and 81% C, p<0.001). Endoscopy was performed in 49 of these: 20% had small varices, 0% high-risk varices. No patients from group A had varices, and 90% with varices belonged to group C. HVPG was obtained in 40 patients: 93% had PH (HVPG >5 mmHg) and 65% clinically significant PH (CSPH, HVPG ⩾ 10). Only 3 patients, all from group A, had HVPG <5. All patients from groups B and C with LS ⩾ 13.6 had PH. The LS 25 cut-off was excellent at ruling-in CSPH.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple strategy based on routine clinical data and TE could be useful to detect early PH among asymptomatic patients with chronic liver disease.

Can non-selective beta-blockers prevent hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis?

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the main liver-related cause of death in patients with compensated cirrhosis. The early phases are asymptomatic and the prognosis is poor, which makes prevention essential. We propose that non-selective beta-blockers decrease the incidence and growth of hepatocellular carcinoma via a reduction of the inflammatory load from the gut to the liver and inhibition of angiogenesis. Due to their effect on the portal pressure, non-selective beta-blockers are used for prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding. Recently, non-hemodynamic effects of beta-blockers have received increasing attention. Blockage of β-adrenoceptors in the intestinal mucosa and gut lymphatic tissue together with changes in type and virulence of the intestinal microbiota lead to reduced bacterial translocation and a subsequent decrease in the portal load of pathogen-associated molecular patterns. This may reduce hepatic inflammation. Blockage of β-adrenoceptors also decrease angiogenesis by inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factors. Because gut-derived inflammation and neo-angiogenesis are important in hepatic carcinogenesis, non-selective beta-blockers can potentially reduce the development and growth of hepatocellular carcinoma. Rodent and in vitro studies support the hypothesis, but clinical verification is needed. Different study designs may be considered. The feasibility of a randomized controlled trial is limited due to the necessary large number of patients and long follow-up. Observational studies carry a high risk of bias. The meta-analytic approach may be used if the incidence and mortality of hepatocellular carcinoma can be extracted from trials on variceal bleeding and if the combined sample size and follow up is sufficient.

Propranolol treatment of portal hypertension in cirrhosis patients is better the higher the untreated pressure: a single-centre prospective experience

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of propranolol treatment on the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and the relationship between native HVPG and the effect of propranolol in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension in a prospective, observational, single-center study.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The HVPG was registered prospectively in 124 consecutive cirrhosis patients with and without treatment with propranolol 80 mg daily. Results. 41% of the patients responded to the treatment with the intended reduction of HVPG to <12 mm Hg and/or by >20%. The HVPG reduction was larger for higher native HVPG values (p < 0.001). There was no significant relation between changes in heart rate and changes in HVPG (p = 0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The high fraction of hemodynamic non-responders supports the rationale of measuring the HVPG with and without propranolol treatment to assist the clinical assessment and avoid meaningless and potentially harmful treatment. The positive association between a high native HVPG and propranolol-induced HVPG reduction indicates that pharmacological treatment also benefits patients with advanced portal hypertension.