Endoscopic variceal ligation in prophylaxis of first variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with high-risk esophageal varices

Role of Spleen Stiffness Measurement in the Evaluation of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease

BACKGROUND

Spleen stiffness measurement (SSM) correlates with the severity of portal hypertension.

AIMS

We investigated the utility of SSM in individuals with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) for detecting cirrhosis, esophageal varices (EV), and high-risk EV.

METHODS

154 study participants with MASLD underwent simultaneous liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and SSM. 96 (62%) participants had an upper endoscopy (73 participants, i.e., 47% undergoing within a year). The diagnostic performance of SSM, as well as the BAVENO VII proposed SSM cutoffs (≥ 21 kPa, > 40 kPa, and > 50 kPa), was examined.

RESULTS

The failure rate for SSM was 19% compared to 5% for LSM. An invalid SSM was statistically significantly associated with a higher body mass index, a larger waist circumference, and a lower fibrosis stage. The area under the receiver operating characteristics for SSM to diagnose cirrhosis, EV, and high-risk EV was 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.85), 0.74 (95% CI 0.61-0.84), and 0.82 (95% CI 0.75-0.98), respectively. SSM ≥ 21 kPa cutoff had a sensitivity > 96% for all three outcomes, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 88% for cirrhosis. In contrast, SSM > 40 kPa and SSM > 50 kPa cutoffs had better diagnostic abilities for identifying EV, particularly high-risk EV (sensitivity of 100% and 93% with NPV of 100% and 96%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

SSM has a higher failure rate in individuals who are non-cirrhotic or have a higher BMI, or larger waist circumference. Although useful for diagnosing NASH cirrhosis, SSM is most reliable in excluding EV and high-risk EV.

Prognostic impact of worsening of esophageal varices after balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) is widely performed for treating gastric varices (GVs). However, worsening of esophageal varices (EVs) can be observed after BRTO. This study aimed to investigate the impact of EV worsening on prognosis after BRTO.

METHODS

Overall, 258 patients who underwent initial BRTO for GV treatment between January 2004 and May 2019 at 12 institutions were retrospectively registered.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 235 patients (91.1%). Based on the exclusion criteria, 37 patients were excluded, and 198 were evaluated. The cumulative worsening rates of EVs at 1, 2, and 3 years were 39.0%, 59.4%, and 68.4%, respectively. In the univariate Cox proportional hazards model, sex, EV size, history of EV treatment, left gastric vein dilatation, platelet count, aspartate transaminase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), total bilirubin, albumin, albumin-bilirubin score, prothrombin time-international normalized ratio, fibrosis-4 index, AST to platelet ratio index, and spleen width were significantly associated with worsening of EV after BRTO. Multivariate analysis showed that sex (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.86; P = 0.04), left gastric vein dilatation (aHR 1.90; 95% CI 1.17-3.10; P = 0.01), ALT (aHR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00-1.03; P = 0.02), albumin (aHR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43-0.87; P < 0.01), and spleen width (aHR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.03; P < 0.01) were independent risk factors for worsening of EV after BRTO. Patients with EV worsening within 1 year after BRTO had a significantly worse prognosis than the other patients (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Early worsening of EV after BRTO was associated with poor prognosis after BRTO.

Minimal and Maximal Extent of Band Ligation for Acute Variceal Bleeding during the First Endoscopic Session

Background/Aims

The appropriate number of band ligations during the first endoscopic session for acute variceal bleeding is debatable. We aimed to compare the technical aspects of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in patients with variceal bleeding according to the number of bands placed per session.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed multicenter data from patients who underwent EVL for acute variceal bleeding. Patients were classified into minimal EVL (targeting only the foci with active bleeding or stigmata of recent bleeding) and maximal EVL (targeting potential bleeding sources in addition to the aforementioned targets) groups. The primary endpoint was 5-day treatment failure. The secondary endpoints were 30-day rebleeding, 30-day mortality, and intraprocedural adverse events.

Results

Minimal EVL was associated with lower rates of hypoxia and shock during EVL than maximal EVL (hypoxia, 0.9% vs 2.9%; shock, 1.3% vs 3.4%). However, treatment failure was higher in the minimal EVL group than in the maximal EVL group (odds ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 2.41). Age ≥60 years, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score ≥15, Child-Turcotte-Pugh classification C, presence of hepatocellular carcinoma, and systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg at initial presentation were also associated with treatment failure. In contrast, 30-day rebleeding and 30-day mortality did not differ between the minimal and maximal EVL groups.

Conclusions

Given that minimal EVL was associated with a high risk of treatment failure, maximal EVL may be a better option for variceal bleeding. However, the minimal EVL strategy should be considered in select patients because it does not affect 30-day rebleeding and mortality.

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.

Band ligation versus sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including bleeding (haemorrhage) from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal bleeding commonly occurs in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. Prevention is, therefore, important. Randomised clinical trials have shown that non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal band ligation decrease the incidence of variceal bleeding in adults. In children and adolescents, band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as primary prophylaxis alternatives for oesophageal variceal bleeding. However, it is unknown whether these interventions are of benefit or harm when used for primary prophylaxis in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of band ligation compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and two other databases (April 2020). We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications, and we also handsearched abstract books of the two main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conferences from January 2008 to December 2019. We also searched clinicaltrials.gov, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) for ongoing clinical trials. We imposed no language or document type restrictions on our search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We aimed to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status, to assess the benefits and harms of band ligation versus sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. If the search for randomised clinical trials retrieved quasi-randomised and other observational studies, then we read them through to extract information on harm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology to perform this systematic review. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were oesophageal variceal bleeding and adverse events not considered serious. We used the intention-to-treat principle. We analysed data using Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

One conference abstract, describing a feasibility multi-centre randomised clinical trial, fulfilled our review inclusion criteria. We judged the trial at overall high risk of bias. This trial was conducted in three hospital centres in the United Kingdom. The aim of the trial was to determine the feasibility and safety of further larger randomised clinical trials of prophylactic band ligation versus no active treatment in children with portal hypertension and large oesophageal varices. Twelve children received prophylactic band ligation and 10 children received no active treatment. There was no information on the age of the children included, or about the diagnosis of any child included. All children were followed up for at least six months. Mortality was 8% (1/12) in the band ligation group versus 0% (0/10) in the no active intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 2.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 56.25; very low certainty of evidence). The abstract did not report when the death occurred, but we assume it happened between the six-month follow-up and one year. No child (0%) in the band ligation group developed adverse events (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.25; very low certainty of evidence) but one child out of 10 (10%) in the no active intervention group developed idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura. One child out of 12 (8%) in the band ligation group underwent liver transplantation versus none in the no active intervention group (0%) (RR 2.54, 95% CI 0.11 to 56.25; very low certainty of evidence). The trial reported no other serious adverse events or liver-related morbidity. Quality of life was not reported. Oesophageal variceal bleeding occurred in 8% (1/12) of the children in the band ligation group versus 30% (3/10) of the children in the no active intervention group (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.27; very low certainty of evidence). No adverse events considered non-serious were reported. Two children were lost to follow-up by one-year. Ten children in total completed the trial at two-year follow-up. There was no information on funding.  We found two observational studies on endoscopic variceal ligation when searching for randomised trials. One found no harm, and the other reported E nterobacter cloacae septicaemia in one child and mild, transient, upper oesophageal sphincter stenosis in another. We did not assess these studies for risk of bias. We did not find any ongoing randomised clinical trials of interest to our review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence, obtained from only one feasibility randomised clinical trial at high risk of bias, is very scanty. It is very uncertain about whether prophylactic band ligation versus sham or no (active) intervention may affect mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, or oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with portal hypertension and large oesophageal varices. We have no data on quality of life. No adverse events considered non-serious were reported. The results presented in the trial need to be interpreted with caution. In addition, the highly limited data cover only part of our research question; namely, children with portal hypertension and large oesophageal varices. Data on children with portal vein thrombosis are lacking. Larger randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits and harms of band ligation compared with sham treatment for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are needed. The trials should include important clinical outcomes such as death, quality of life, failure to control bleeding, and adverse events.

One-stop shop for variceal surveillance: integration of unsedated ultrathin endoscopy into the routine clinic visit

BACKGROUND

The endoscopic appearance of oesophageal varices determines the need for prophylaxis. However, as the point prevalence of varices is low (25%), the majority of surveillance endoscopies are unnecessary and costly. Narrow diameter, ultrathin (UT) endoscopes are more tolerable than conventional upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopes and can be used without sedation. We hypothesised that unsedated UT endoscopy for variceal surveillance could be implemented during the routine outpatient clinic visit allowing accurate diagnosis of varices and the timely provision of prophylaxis.

METHODS

Patients with cirrhosis awaiting surveillance endoscopy were identified. UT endoscopy was scheduled during routine clinic review at the same time as ultrasound surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma. UGI endoscopy was performed unsedated using the E.G Scan II disposable endoscope. Varices were graded using the modified Paquet classification. Video recordings of procedures were reviewed by blinded assessors and agreement was assessed using the kappa statistic.

RESULTS

40 patients (80% male) underwent unsedated UT endoscopy. All procedures were successful and tolerated well in 98% of cases. Median procedure time was 2 min (IQR 1-3). Varices were found in 37.5% (17.5% grade 1 and 20% grade 2). Patients with grade 2 varices were prescribed non-selective beta blockers at the clinic appointment. Kappa statistic for the finding of any varices was 0.636 (p=0.001) and 0.8-1.0 for diagnosis of grade 2 varices (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient unsedated ultrathin endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis is accurate, safe and feasible. This integrative care model is convenient, particularly for regional communities, and is likely to result in significant cost savings associated with variceal surveillance.

Proposal for the return to routine endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many jurisdictions and gastroenterological societies around the world have suspended nonurgent endoscopy. Subject to country-specific variability, it is projected that with current mitigation measures in place, the peak incidence of active COVID-19 infections may be delayed by over 6 months. Although this aims to prevent the overburdening of healthcare systems, prolonged deferral of elective endoscopy will become unsustainable. Herein, we propose that by incorporating readily available point-of-care tests and conducting accurate clinical risk assessments, a safe and timely return to elective endoscopy is feasible. Our algorithm not only focuses on the safety of patients and healthcare workers, but also assists in rationalizing the use of invaluable resources such as personal protective equipment.

Data from a large Western centre exploring the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on endoscopy services and cancer diagnosis

OBJECTIVE

The global COVID-19 pandemic has changed healthcare across the world. Efforts have concentrated on managing this crisis, with impact on cancer care unclear. We investigated the impact on endoscopy services and gastrointestinal (GI) cancer diagnosis in the UK.

DESIGN

Analysis of endoscopy procedures and cancer diagnosis at a UK Major General Hospital. Procedure rates and diagnosis of GI malignancy were examined over 8-week periods in spring, summer and autumn 2019 before the start of the crisis and were compared with rates since onset of national lockdown and restrictions on elective endoscopy. The number of CT scans performed and malignancies diagnosed in the two corresponding periods in 2019 and 2020 were also evaluated.

RESULTS

2 698 2516 and 3074 endoscopic procedures were performed in 2019, diagnosing 64, 73 and 78 cancers, respectively, the majority being in patients with alarm symptoms and fecal immunochemical test+ve bowel cancer screening population. Following initiation of new guidelines for management of endoscopy services 245 procedures were performed in a 6 week duration, diagnosing 18 cancers. This equates to potentially delayed diagnosis of 37 cancers per million population per month. Clinician triage improved, resulting in 13.6 procedures performed to diagnose one cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate an 88% reduction in procedures during the first 6 weeks of COVID-19 crisis, resulting in 66% fewer GI cancer diagnoses. Triage changes reduced the number of procedures required to diagnose cancer. Our data can help healthcare planning to manage the extra workload on endoscopy departments during the recovery period from COVID-19.

Can the Computed Tomographic Aspect of Porto-Systemic Circulation in Cirrhotic Patients be Associated with the Presence of Variceal Hemorrhage?

Background and objectives: Variceal bleeding is a serious complication caused by portal hypertension, frequently encountered among cirrhotic patients. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the aspect of the collateral, porto-systemic circulation, as detected by CT are associated with the presence variceal hemorrhage (VH). Materials and Methods: 81 cirrhotic patients who underwent a contrast-enhanced CT examination were retrospectively included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups: Cirrhotic patients with variceal hemorrhage during the hospital admission concomitant, with the CT examination (n = 33) and group 2-cirrhotic patients, without any variceal hemorrhage in their medical history (n = 48). The diameter of the left gastric vein, the presence or absence and dimensions of oesophageal and gastric varices, paraumbilical veins and splenorenal shunts were the indicators assessed on CT. Results: The univariate analysis showed a significant association between the presence of upper GI bleeding and the diameters of paraoesophageal veins, paragastric veins and left gastric vein respectively, all of these CT parameters being higher in patients with variceal bleeding. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, only the diameter of the left gastric vein was independently associated with the presence of variceal hemorrhage (OR = 1.6 (95% CI: 1.17-2.19), p = 0.003). We found an optimal cut-off value of 3 mm for the diameter of the left gastric vein useful to discriminate among patients with variceal hemorrhage from the ones without it, with a good diagnostic performance (AUC = 0.78, Se = 97%, Sp = 45.8%, PPV = 55.2%, NPV = 95.7%).Conclusions: Our observations point out that an objective CT quantification of porto-systemic circulation can be correlated with the presence of variceal hemorrhage and the diameter of the left gastric vein can be a reliable parameter associated with this condition.

Cost-comparison analysis of FIB-4, ELF and fibroscan in community pathways for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

Background

The identification of patients with advanced liver fibrosis secondary to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) remains challenging. Using non-invasive liver fibrosis tests (NILT) in primary care may permit earlier detection of patients with clinically significant disease for specialist review, and reduce unnecessary referral of patients with mild disease. We constructed an analytical model to assess the clinical and cost differentials of such strategies.

Methods

A probabilistic decisional model simulated a cohort of 1000 NAFLD patients over 1 year from a healthcare payer perspective. Simulations compared standard care (SC) (scenario 1) to: Scenario 2: FIB-4 for all patients followed by Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test for patients with indeterminate FIB-4 results; Scenario 3: FIB-4 followed by fibroscan for indeterminate FIB-4; Scenario 4: ELF alone; and Scenario 5: fibroscan alone. Model estimates were derived from the published literature. The primary outcome was cost per case of advanced fibrosis detected.

Results

Introduction of NILT increased detection of advanced fibrosis over 1 year by 114, 118, 129 and 137% compared to SC in scenarios 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively with reduction in unnecessary referrals by 85, 78, 71 and 42% respectively.

The cost per case of advanced fibrosis (METAVIR ≥F3) detected was £25,543, £8932, £9083, £9487 and £10,351 in scenarios 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Total budget spend was reduced by 25.2, 22.7, 15.1 and 4.0% in Scenarios 2, 3, 4 and 5 compared to £670 K at baseline.

Conclusion

Our analyses suggest that the use of NILT in primary care can increases early detection of advanced liver fibrosis and reduce unnecessary referral of patients with mild disease and is cost efficient. Adopting a two-tier approach improves resource utilization.

Band ligation versus no intervention for primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

The presence of oesophageal varices is associated with the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopic variceal ligation is used to prevent this occurrence but the ligation procedure may be associated with complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of band ligation versus no intervention for primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 9 February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing band ligation verus no intervention regardless of publication status, blinding, or language in the analyses of benefits and harms, and observational studies in the assessment of harms. Included participants had cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no previous history of variceal bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors extracted data independently. The primary outcome measures were all-cause mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and I² values as a marker of heterogeneity. In addition, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTTB) for the primary outcomes . We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains; determined the certainty of the evidence using GRADE; and conducted sensitivity analyses including Trial Sequential Analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised clinical trials involving 637 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One of the trials included an additional small number of participants (< 10% of the total) with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension/portal vein block. We classified one trial as at low risk of bias for the outcome, mortality and high risk of bias for the remaining outcomes; the five remaining trials were at high risk of bias for all outcomes. We downgraded the evidence to moderate certainty due to the bias risk. We gathered data on all primary outcomes from all trials. Seventy-one of 320 participants allocated to band ligation compared to 129 of 317 participants allocated to no intervention died (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70; I² = 0%; NNTTB = 6 persons). In addition, band ligation was associated with reduced risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 61%; NNTTB = 5 persons), serious adverse events (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 44%; NNTTB = 4 persons), and variceal bleeding (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.69; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 56%; NNTTB = 5 persons). The non-serious adverse events reported in association with band ligation included oesophageal ulceration, dysphagia, odynophagia, retrosternal and throat pain, heartburn, and fever, and in the one trial involving participants with either small or large varices, the incidence of non-serious side effects in the banding group was much higher in those with small varices, namely ulcers: small versus large varices 30.5% versus 8.7%; heartburn 39.2% versus 17.4%. No trials reported on health-related quality of life.Two trials did not receive support from pharmaceutical companies; the remaining four trials did not provide information on this issue.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found moderate-certainty evidence that, in patients with cirrhosis, band ligation of oesophageal varices reduces mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, variceal bleeding, and serious adverse events compared to no intervention. It is unlikely that further trials of band ligation versus no intervention would be considered ethical.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: ultra-thin gastroscopy compared to conventional gastroscopy for the diagnosis of oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Haemorrhage from ruptured oesophageal varices is a common cause of death in people with cirrhosis. Guidelines recommend screening for varices at time of cirrhosis diagnosis and throughout the course of the disease. Conventional gastroscopy is the criterion standard for variceal screening; however, is invasive, costly, and carries risks related to use of sedation. Ultra-thin gastroscopy (using endoscopes with a shaft diameter ≤6 mm) has been proposed as an alternative method of variceal screening that mitigates these risks.

AIM

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultra-thin gastroscopy compared to conventional gastroscopy for the diagnosis of varices in people with cirrhosis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases were searched for studies that evaluated the accuracy of ultra-thin gastroscopy compared to conventional gastroscopy in the diagnosis of oesophageal varices.

RESULTS

Ten studies, 7 in known cirrhosis, with 752 participants were included in this systematic review. The overall prevalence of oesophageal varices was 42%. On bivariate modelling, pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 98% (95% CI 93%-99%) and 96% (95% CI 91%-99%) respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 28 (95% CI 10.7-73.2) and 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.72) respectively. Kappa coefficient for inter-observer agreement for any varices ranged from 0.45 to 0.90. No serious adverse events related to ultra-thin gastroscopy were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultra-thin gastroscopy is accurate in the diagnosis of oesophageal varices, safe and well tolerated. It is a valid alternative to conventional gastroscopy for the screening and surveillance of varices in people with cirrhosis.

Comparison of Therapies for Primary Prevention of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of different approaches in primary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding and overall survival in patients with cirrhosis with large varices. Thirty-two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 3,362 adults with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices and no prior history of bleeding, with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up, were included. Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB), isosorbide-mononitrate (ISMN), carvedilol, and variceal band ligation (VBL), alone or in combination, were compared with each other or placebo. Primary outcomes were reduction of all-cause mortality and prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding. Random-effects NMA was performed and summary estimates were expressed as odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals (OR; CI). Quality of evidence was critically appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Moderate quality evidence supports NSBB monotherapy (0.70; 0.49-1.00) or in combination with VBL (0.49; 0.23-1.02) or ISMN (0.44; 0.21-0.93) for decreasing mortality in patients with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices and no prior history of bleeding. Moderate-quality evidence supports carvedilol (0.21; 0.08-0.56) and VBL monotherapy (0.33; 0.19-0.55) or in combination with NSBB (0.34; 0.14-0.86), and low-quality evidence supports NSBB monotherapy (0.64; 0.38-1.07) for primary prevention of variceal bleeding. VBL carries a higher risk of serious adverse events compared with NSBB. Conclusion: NSBB monotherapy may decrease all-cause mortality and the risk of first variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices. Additionally, NSBB carries a lower risk of serious complications compared with VBL. Therefore, NSBB may be the preferred initial approach for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding.

Oesophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis attending a major tertiary hospital in Ghana

Introduction

Oesophageal variceal bleeding is a potentially fatal consequence of portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients. In Ghana, bleeding oesophageal varices (OV) are a significant cause of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding with comparatively high mortality. This study was to determine the prevalence of OV and its clinical correlate in cirrhotic patients.

Methods

This was a cross sectional hospital based study of 149 subjects with liver cirrhosis from 5^thNovember, 2015 to 4^th November, 2016. Demographic and other clinical data were collected using standardized questionnaire. Liver function, full blood count, HBsAg and anti-HCV Ab tests were done for all patients. All patients underwent an abdominal ultrasound to assess liver and document ascites. Upper GI endoscopy (UGIE) was done to screen for and grade varices.

Results

A total of 149 patients with a mean age of 45 ± 12.28 years were evaluated. There were 77.85% and 22.15% men and women respectively, with a male to female ratio of 3.5:1. By Child-Pugh Classification, 12 (8.16%) patients were in class A, 64 (43.54%) in class B and 71 (48.3%) in class C at presentation. On UGIE, 135 (90.60%) had varices and 14 patients (9.40%) had no varices. One hundred and eleven of the varices (82.22%) were large varices and the rest (17.78%) small varices.

Conclusion

Majority of cirrhotic patients present late with advance disease to this referral centre. Most have large varices on their first screening endoscopy. Prophylactic treatment should be considered for all cirrhotics especially patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis when UGIE cannot be done immediately.

Current and Future Use of Esophageal Capsule Endoscopy

Capsule endoscopy can be a diagnostic option for patients with esophageal diseases who cannot tolerate esophagogastroduodenoscopy.Functional modifications of the capsule allow for thorough examination of the esophagus. Esophageal capsule endoscopy has so farfailed to show sufficient performance to justify the replacement of traditional endoscopy for the diagnosis of esophageal diseasesbecause the esophagus has a short transit time and common pathologies appear near the esophagogastric junction. However,technological improvements are being introduced to overcome the limitations of capsule endoscopy, which is expected to become agood alternative to conventional endoscopy.

Evaluation and management of variceal bleeding

Acute variceal bleeding is one of the most fatal complications of cirrhosis and is responsible for about one-third of cirrhosis-related deaths. Therefore, every effort should be made to emergently resuscitate the patients, start pharmacotherapy as soon as possible and do endoscopic therapy in a timely manner. Despite the recent advances in treatment, mortality rate is still high. We provide a comprehensive review of evaluation and management of variceal bleeding.

Risk factors for exacerbation of gastroesophageal varices and portosystemic encephalopathy during treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogs for hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the risk factors for worsening of gastroesophageal varices (GEVs) and development of portosystemic encephalopathy in patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related cirrhosis during nucleos(t)ide analog (NA) treatment.

METHODS

One hundred and thirty-seven patients with HBV-related cirrhosis were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. Findings of portal hemodynamics with computed tomography, liver function, and endoscopic examinations during NA treatment were assessed.

RESULTS

Among 137 patients, feeding vessels for GEVs (left gastric vein, posterior gastric vein, and short gastric vein) were present in 56 (41%) patients, and extrahepatic portosystemic shunt (paraesophageal vein, paraumbilicul vein, and splenorenal shunt) were present in 36 (26%) patients at the start of NA treatment. Although NA treatment was successful, significant improvements were not observed in portosystemic collateral vessels 3 years after NA treatment and GEVs were exacerbated in 48 (35%) patients. The cumulative 5- and 10-year exacerbation rate of GEVs was 27% and 50%, respectively. By multivariate analysis, the existence of feeding vessels for GEVs at the start of NA treatment was the independent predictive factor for the exacerbation of GEVs (P < 0.001). Eight patients who had extrahepatic portosystemic shunt at the start of NA treatment developed portosystemic encephalopathy during follow-up. The 3- and 5-year incidence of that was 5% and 8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of portosystemic collateral vessels at the start of NA treatment increases the risk of GEVs worsening and development of portosystemic encephalopathy in patients with HBV-related cirrhosis, despite improvement of liver function and success in reducing viral loads with NA treatment.

Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient Measurement in Bangladeshi Cirrhotic Patients: A Correlation with Child's Status, Variceal Size, and Bleeding

Background:

Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) reflects the portal pressure in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension. The aim of the study was to assess the relation of HVPG to variceal size, Child-Pugh status, and variceal bleeding.

Materials and methods:

A total of 96 patients with cirrhosis of liver were enrolled prospectively and each patient’s HVPG level was measured via the transfemoral route. Clinical and biochemical evaluation and upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy were done in each subject. Severity of cirrhosis was assessed by Child’s status.

Results:

The mean HVPG was higher in patients with Child’s B and C (14.10 ± 7.56 and 13.64 ± 7.17 mm Hg respectively) compared with those of Child’s A (10.15 ± 5.63 mm Hg). The levels of HVPG differed significantly between Child’s classes A and B (p = 0.011) and Child’s A and C (p = 0.041). The mean HVPG was also higher in bleeders compared with nonbleeders with large varices (17.7 ± 5.5 vs 14.9 ± 4.7 mmHg respectively; p = 0.006).

Conclusion:

Hepatic venous pressure gradient seems to be important to assess the severity of liver cirrhosis.

How to cite this article: Al Mahtab M, Noor E Alam SM, Rahim MA, Alam MA, Khondaker FA, Moben AL, Mohsena M, Akbar SMF. Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient Measurement in Bangladeshi Cirrhotic Patients: A Correlation with Child’s Status, Variceal Size, and Bleeding. Euroasian J Hepato-Gastroenterol 2017;7(2):142-145.

Variceal Bleeding: Prophylaxis, Treatment, and Prevention

Variceal bleeding leads to significant morbidity and mortality in patients with portal hypertension. Mortality can be greater than 50% with the initial bleed and many patients develop recurrent bleeding with equal or greater mortality. Currently cirrhosis is the leading cause of portal hypertension, which is defined as a hepatic vein-portal vein gradient greater than 5 mmHg. Portal hypertension may arise from increased splanchnic blood flow due to systemic vasodilation that occurs in the hyperdynamic circulation of cirrhosis or from increased vascular resistance in intrahepatic and/or portocollateral vessels; by decreasing splanchnic blood flow, portal inflow decreases and so does portal pressure. Pharmacologic therapy consisting of nonselective β-blockers, vasopressin, and octreotide act by decreasing splanchnic blood flow, and long-acting nitrates may cause direct vasodilation of portocollateral vessels and/or decreased splanchnic blood flow. Nonselective β-blockers are the cornerstone of treatment for primary prophylaxis of bleeding, whereas vasopressin and octreotide are used for acute hemorrhaging. Two endoscopic modalities are available for control of acute bleeding and prevention of recurrent bleeding: sclerotherapy and endoscopic variceal ligation. After standard airway control and adequate fluid resuscitation, endoscopy helps localize the area of bleeding, and often in conjunction with vasopressin or octreotide can help control bleeding. Empiric antibiotics (fluoroquinolones or third-generation cephalosporins) should be started prior to endoscopy and early in the course of treatment. Sclerotherapy and band ligation along with nonselective β-blockers can help prevent recurrences of bleeding. For patients with bleeding gastric varices or uncontrollably bleeding esophageal varices, interventional radiologic procedures such as the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) can be used, and depending on the clinical condition and Child's classification of the patient, a surgically created portosystemic shunt may be appropriate treatment. Hopefully with emerging, new techniques and more widespread, prudent use of prophylactic drugs and endoscopy, the mortality and morbidity of variceal bleeding can be reduced.

The cost of screening esophageal varices: traditional endoscopy versus computed tomography

OBJECTIVE

Under current guidelines, patients diagnosed with cirrhosis are to undergo initial and continued screening endoscopy for esophageal varices throughout the course of disease. Recent literature suggests that computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen is adequately sensitive for detecting grade 3 varices, those in need of immediate intervention. This study presents a cost comparison of traditional endoscopy versus CT of the abdomen.

METHODS

Using TreeAge Pro software, a budget impact cost model was created for a hypothetical managed care organization covering 1 million lives over a 10-year period. Incidence figures for cirrhosis and the progression of esophageal varices were applied to the patient population. National Medicare reimbursement costs were used to compare screening with traditional endoscopy versus CT. Costs utilizing screening with combined endoscopy and CT were also examined.

RESULTS

The results of comparing screening paradigms under a budget impact cost model results in an outcome measure termed "per-member, per-month" (PMPM) cost of implementing a new strategy. Computed tomography was the least expensive modality with an average 10-year cost per screened patient of $1097.30 and PMPM of $0.03. Endoscopy was the most expensive modality with an average 10-year cost per screened patient of $1464.89 and PMPM of $0.04.

CONCLUSION

Computed tomography has been shown to be sensitive in detecting esophageal varices and now less costly to implement in screening. The cost of esophageal rupture in endoscopy and the less costly risk of contrast reaction as well as radiation exposure in CT of the abdomen should be considered when developing a screening paradigm.

Hospitalization for variceal hemorrhage in an era with more prevalent cirrhosis

AIM

To examine hospitalization rates for variceal hemorrhage and relation to cause of cirrhosis during an era of increased cirrhosis prevalence.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage who were admitted to a tertiary care referral center from 1998 to 2009. Subjects were classified according to the etiology of their liver disease: alcoholic cirrhosis and non-alcoholic cirrhosis. Rates of hospitalization for variceal bleeding were determined. Data were also collected on total hospital admissions per year and cirrhosis-related admissions per year over the same time period. These data were then compared and analyzed for trends in admission rates.

RESULTS

Hospitalizations for cirrhosis significantly increased from 611 per 100000 admissions in 1998-2001 to 1232 per 100000 admissions in 2006-9 (P value for trend < 0.0001). This increase was seen in admissions for both alcoholic and non-alcoholic cirrhosis (P values for trend < 0.001 and < 0.0001 respectively). During the same time period, there were 243 admissions for gastroesophageal variceal bleeding (68% male, mean age 54.3 years, 62% alcoholic cirrhosis). Hospitalizations for gastroesophageal variceal bleeding significantly decreased from 96.6 per 100000 admissions for the time period 1998-2001 to 70.6 per 100000 admissions for the time period 2006-2009 (P value for trend = 0.01). There were significant reductions in variceal hemorrhage from non-alcoholic cirrhosis (41.6 per 100000 admissions in 1998-2001 to 19.7 per 100000 admissions in 2006-2009, P value for trend = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Hospitalizations for variceal hemorrhage have decreased, most notably in patients with non-alcoholic cirrhosis, and this may reflect broader use of strategies to prevent bleeding.

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding: pharmacological therapy versus endoscopic banding

Variceal bleeding is one of the most feared complications in patients with liver cirrhosis. It continues to be a leading cause of death among patients with liver cirrhosis. Although its prognosis has improved over the last several decades, it still carries substantial mortality. Preventing variceal bleeding has been extensively studied and evaluated in several studies in the recent years and the comparison between the different modalities available to prevent variceal bleeding has been an area of discussion. Currently the two most widely used modalities to prevent variceal bleeding are pharmacologic (non-selective beta-blockers [NSBB]) and endoscopic (variceal band ligation [VBL]) which have replaced sclerotherapy in the recent years. In addition to NSBB and recent carvedilol, different other medications have been evaluated including isosorbide mononitrates, spironolactone and angiotensin blocking agents. Comparing the outcomes and adverse effects of these two modalities has been evaluated in different studies. Some studies have showed superiority of VBL until recently, when carvedilol has been included, however; overall mortality has been similar in most trials. Despite that, NSBB remain the first line treatment, as they are cheaper and relatively effective in preventing both esophageal and gastric bleeding. The following sections discuss the primary prevention of variceal bleeding with a focus on NSBB, carvedilol and VBL.

Impact of portal vein thrombosis on the efficacy of endoscopic variceal band ligation

BACKGROUND

Influence of portal vein thrombosis on efficacy of endoscopic variceal banding in patients with cirrhosis or extrahepatic portal vein obstruction has never been evaluated. Aim of the study was to assess influence of thrombosis on rate and time to eradication in cirrhosis and extrahepatic portal vein obstruction undergoing banding, compared to cirrhotic patients without thrombosis.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 235 consecutive patients (192 with cirrhosis without thrombosis, 22 cirrhosis and thrombosis and 21 extrahepatic portal vein obstruction) who underwent banding. Banding was performed every 2-3 weeks until eradication; endoscopic follow-up was performed at 1, 3, 6 months, then annually.

RESULTS

Eradication was achieved in 233 patients. Median time to eradication in cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis vs. cirrhotic patients without thrombosis was 50.9 days (12-440) vs. 43.4 days (13-489.4); log-rank: 0.04; patients with extrahepatic portal vein obstruction vs. cirrhotic patients without thrombosis 63.9 days (31-321.6) vs. 43.4 days (13.0-489.4); log-rank: 0.008. Thrombosis was shown to be the only risk factor for longer time to eradication.

CONCLUSIONS

Portal vein thrombosis per se appears to be the cause of a longer time to achieve eradication of varices but, once eradication is achieved, it does not influence their recurrence.

Primary prophylaxis of bleeding from esophageal varices in cirrhosis

Prophylaxis of the first bleeding from esophageal varices became a clinical option more than 20 years ago, and gained a large diffusion in the following years. It is based on the use of nonselective beta-blockers, which decreases portal pressure, or on the eradication of esophageal varices by endoscopic band ligation of varices. In patients with medium or large varices either of these treatments is indicated. In patients with small varices only medical treatment is feasible, and in patients with medium and large varices with contraindication or side-effects due to beta-blockers, only endoscopic band ligation may be used. In this review the rationale and the results of the prophylaxis of bleeding from esophageal varices are discussed.

Risk factors for the exacerbation of esophageal varices or portosystemic encephalopathy after sustained virological response with IFN therapy for HCV-related compensated cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to identify risk factors contributing to the exacerbation of esophageal varices (EV) or portosystemic encephalopathy after hepatitis C virus (HCV) eradication with interferon (IFN) therapy in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Also, the prognosis after HCV eradication was analyzed.

METHODS

Fifty-two patients with sustained virological response to IFN treatment for HCV-related compensated cirrhosis were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study.

RESULTS

At the achievement of HCV eradication, in 31 of the 52 patients (60 %), feeding vessels for EVs (left gastric vein, posterior gastric vein, short gastric vein) were shown, and in 18 patients (35 %) there were extrahepatic portosystemic shunts (paraesophageal vein, paraumbilical vein, and splenorenal shunt). Although the HCV eradication was successful, significant improvements were not observed in portosystemic collateral vessels 1 year after HCV eradication, and EVs were exacerbated in 19 (36 %) patients. The cumulative 1- and 3-year rates of EV exacerbation were 13 % and 49 %, respectively. By multivariate analysis, the existence of feeding vessels for EVs at HCV eradication was an independent predictive factor for the exacerbation of EVs (P = 0.009). Seven patients who had an extrahepatic portosystemic shunt at HCV eradication developed portosystemic encephalopathy during follow up. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year incidences of portosystemic encephalopathy were 6, 21, and 34 %, respectively. The cumulative 5-year survival rate of the cohort was 81 %. Two patients died of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the existence of radical portosystemic collateral vessels at successful HCV eradication increases the risk of the exacerbation of EVs and the incidence of portosystemic encephalopathy in patients with HCV-related cirrhosis.

Detection and grading of esophageal varices on liver CT: comparison of standard and thin-section multiplanar reconstructions in diagnostic accuracy

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to evaluate the performance of liver CT in the diagnosis of esophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis and to determine whether thin-section multiplanar reconstructions (MPRs) improve accuracy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified 109 patients with cirrhosis who underwent endoscopy within 10 weeks after dual-phase liver MDCT supplemented with thin-section axial and coronal portal venous phase reconstructions. Two blinded radiologists independently evaluated each CT examination for the presence and sizes of varices using standard 5-mm axial versus 1- to 3-mm multiplanar images in separate sessions. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value calculations and receiver operating characteristic analysis were performed using endoscopy as the reference standard. Interobserver variability and correlation of CT size to variceal grade were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-six cases of high-risk esophageal varices were identified; all except two were detected on CT by one of the readers on standard 5-mm images. For both readers, sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for the discrimination of high-risk varices using a criterion of 2 mm or greater were nearly the same for the standard 5-mm images versus the 1- to 3-mm multiplanar images (sensitivity and NPV: reader 1, 96% and 98% vs 96% and 99%; reader 2, and 89% and 95% vs 89% and 96%, respectively). Standard 5-mm images yielded a lower specificity for high-risk esophageal varices than the thin-section multiplanar images, and this difference was statistically significant for reader 2. Substantial interobserver agreement was noted for both esophageal varices detection and size measurements.

CONCLUSION

Standard liver CT is sensitive for the detection of high-risk varices and deserves further investigation as a potential cost-effective screening tool for the evaluation of patients with cirrhosis. The addition of 1- to 3-mm MPRs may increase specificity for risk stratification based on size measurements.

Management of varices in cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

Acute variceal bleeding is a medical emergency and one of the main causes of mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Timely and effective treatment of the acute bleeding episode results in increased survival, and appropriate prophylactic treatment can prevent bleeding or rebleeding from varices.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss the prevention of development and growth of varices, the primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding, the treatment of acute bleeding, and the management of gastric varices. We systematically reviewed studies, without time limits, identified through Medline and searches of reference lists, and provide an overview of the evidence underlying the -treatment options in the management of varices in cirrhosis.

EXPERT OPINION

The management of variceal hemorrhage relies on nonspecific interventions (e.g., adequate fluid resuscitation, airway protection) and on specific interventions. These are routine prophylactic antibiotics, vasoactive drugs and endoscopic treatment. Procedures such as the placement of a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube or a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) can be lifesaving. The primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding is based on nonselective beta-blockers and endoscopy, even though TIPS or, less frequently, surgery have a role in selected cases.

Defining the threshold: new data on the ability of capsule endoscopy to discriminate the size of esophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy, EGD) to screen for esophageal varices (EV) is recommended in patients with portal hypertension. Reports indicate that capsule endoscopy (CE) is capable of identifying large/medium varices (L/MV) when the varix comprises more than 25% of the circumference of the field of view.

AIMS

We evaluated the ability of CE to discriminate the size of EV using this grading scale.

METHODS

Patients underwent CE and EGD on the same day. A blinded investigator interpreted capsule findings. CE labeled EV as L/MV if ≥25% of the lumen circumference was occupied, and small/none for <25%.

RESULTS

A total of 37 patients were enrolled in this prospective, observational study at a single tertiary-care academic center. Three CE were excluded due to rapid esophageal transit time or technical malfunction. Using a 25% threshold, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for EC to discriminate L/MV were 23.5%, 88.2%, 66.7%, and 53.6%, respectively (κ=0.12). Reducing the threshold to 12.5% resulted in sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 88.2%, 64.7%, 71.4%, and 84.6%, respectively (κ=0.53). A receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve showed a 15% threshold to be optimal in discriminating EV size using CE, resulting in sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 76.5%, 82.4%, 81.3%, and 77.8%, respectively (κ=0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that discriminating EV size by the current capsule scale is unreliable. Lowering the grading threshold improved the ability to discriminate EV size by CE. In the proper context, CE is an alternative to EGD to screen for EV.

Central obesity and atherogenic dyslipidemia in metabolic syndrome are associated with increased risk for colorectal adenoma in a Chinese population

Background

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is generally accepted as the treatment of choice for bleeding from esophageal varices. It is also used for secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal hemorrhage. However, there is no data or guidelines concerning endoscopic control of ligation ulcers. We conducted a retrospective study of EBL procedures analyzing bleeding complications after EBL.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed data from patients who underwent EBL. We analyzed several data points, including indication for the procedure, bleeding events and the time interval between EBL and bleeding.

Results

255 patients and 387 ligation sessions were included in the analysis. We observed an overall bleeding rate after EBL of 7.8%. Bleeding events after elective treatment (3.9%) were significantly lower than those after treatment for acute variceal hemorrhage (12.1%). The number of bleeding events from ligation ulcers and variceal rebleeding was 14 and 15, respectively. The bleeding rate from the ligation site in the group who underwent emergency ligation was 7.1% and 0.5% in the group who underwent elective ligation. Incidence of variceal rebleeding did not vary significantly. Seventy-five percent of all bleeding episodes after elective treatment occurred within four days after EBL. 20/22 of bleeding events after emergency ligation occured within 11 days after treatment. Elective EBL has a lower risk of bleeding from treatment-induced ulceration than emergency ligation.

Conclusions

Patients who underwent EBL for treatment of acute variceal bleeding should be kept under medical surveillance for 11 days. After elective EBL, it may be reasonable to restrict the period of surveillance to four days or even perform the procedure in an out-patient setting.

Correlation of CYP2C19 genetic polymorphisms with helicobacter pylori eradication in patients with cirrhosis and peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

To investigate whether or not CYP2C19 genotype status is associated with cure rate for Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with cirrhosis and peptic ulcer, achieved with 2 weeks of triple therapy with rabeprazole, amoxicillin and clarithromycin.

METHODS

We prospectively studied 95 consecutive patients with cirrhosis and H. pylori-infected active peptic ulcers. H. pylori infection was confirmed if any 2 of the following were positive: H. pylori DNA, histology, and rapid urease test. Patients were assigned to an open-label 2-week course of oral amoxicillin 1,000 mg b.i.d., rabeprazole 20 mg b.i.d. and clarithromycin 500 mg b.i.d. Subsequently, all patients received oral rabeprazole 20 mg once daily until week 8. Three months and 1 year after therapy, all patients with cirrhosis were followed up endoscopically for peptic ulcer, rapid urease test, and (13)C-urea breath test. The CYP2C19 genotype status for 2 mutations associated with the extensive metabolizer phenotype was determined by polymerase chain reaction and restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis.

RESULTS

Cure rates for H. pylori infection were 80.9% (95% CI, 22.8-88.6%), 89.8% (95% CI, 50.8-90.2%), and 100% (95% CI, 62.8-100%) in the rapid-, intermediate-, and poor-metabolizer groups, respectively. Healing rates for duodenal and gastric ulcer in the 3 groups were roughly parallel with cure rates for H. pylori infection.

CONCLUSION

The results of the genotyping test for CYP2C19 seem to predict cure of H. pylori infection and peptic ulcer in patients with cirrhosis who receive triple therapy with rabeprazole, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin.

PillCam ESO versus esophagogastroduodenoscopy in esophageal variceal screening: A decision analysis

OBJECTIVES

PillCam ESO has been evaluated as a possible strategy to screen patients with cirrhosis for esophageal varices, but current guidelines recommend patients undergo screening with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), as it is currently the gold standard. Although recent data have suggested that PillCam ESO may be an acceptable alternative for screening, there is limited data on its cost-effectiveness compared with other screening modalities. This study was performed to compare the cost-effectiveness of PillCam ESO versus EGD for esophageal variceal screening.

METHODS

Markov models were constructed to compare 2 screening strategies: PillCam ESO versus EGD. In each arm, patients were followed for a time horizon of 15 years in 1-year transition intervals. All variables, transition probabilities, and costs were derived from the medical literature, and sensitivity analyses were performed on the different variables in the model.

RESULTS

Base-case analysis shows that PillCam ESO is associated with an average expected cost of $22,589 and an average expected effectiveness measure of 12.81 life-years. EGD is associated with an average expected cost of $23,083 and an average expected effectiveness measure of 12.67 life-years. PillCam ESO was found to dominate EGD as a screening strategy for patients with cirrhosis. Sensitivity analyses found several variables within the model to have influential effects on the results.

CONCLUSIONS

PillCam ESO is the dominant strategy for screening patients with cirrhosis for esophageal varices. However, based on a small difference in costs and effectiveness between each strategy, the results would suggest that PillCam ESO and EGD are essentially equivalent strategies.

Detection and grading for esophageal varices in patients with chronic liver damage: comparison of gadolinium-enhanced and unenhanced steady-state coherent MR images

The purpose of this study was to compare observer interpreted steady-state coherent coronal images and gadolinium-enhanced axial images in terms of the detection and grading of esophageal varices. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and gastrointestinal endoscopy were performed within 2 weeks in 90 patients with chronic liver damage, including 55 with untreated esophageal varices, for periodic screening purposes. Two blinded readers retrospectively reviewed T1- and T2-weighted images with gadolinium-enhanced (gadolinium image set) and steady-state coherent (coherent image set) images. Sensitivity for the detection of esophageal varices was higher (P<.001) in the gadolinium image set (76%) than in the coherent image set (35%); on the other hand, specificity was higher (P<.001) in the coherent image set (91%) than in the gadolinium image set (66%). Furthermore, area under the ROC curve was higher for the gadolinium image set (Az=0.823) than the coherent image set (Az=0.761) (P=.48). Moderate and weak positive correlations with endoscopic grades were found for the gadolinium image (r=0.48, P<.01) and coherent image sets (r=0.34, P=.018). The addition of steady-state coherent imaging to the current routine liver imaging protocol did not improve the detection or grading of esophageal varices, whereas gadolinium-enhanced imaging was found to be potentially valuable. Nevertheless, endoscopy was confirmed to be mandatory in patients with esophageal varices suspected by MRI of the liver.

Evaluation of entire gastric fundic and esophageal varices secondary to posthepatitic cirrhosis: portal venography using 64-row MDCT

BACKGROUND

There are no reports regarding entire gastric fundic and esophageal varices evaluated with 64-row multidetector CT (MDCT). We attempt to clarify the feasibility of portal venography with this scanner in evaluation of these varices.

METHODS

A total of 33 patients, with clinically confirmed gastric fundic and esophageal varices secondary to posthepatitic cirrhosis, underwent thoracicoabdominal triphasic enhancement scans using 64-row MDCT along with conventional angiographic portography. CT portography and conventional portography were compared by statistical agreement to determine whether CT maximum intensity projection (CT-MIP) portography is useful in evaluation of entire gastric fundic and esophageal varices.

RESULTS

CT-MIP portography demonstrated gastric fundic and esophageal varices, and the inflowing and outflowing vessels of the varices. Gastric fundic varices were shown in 32 cases (97.0%), and esophageal varices were in 27 (81.8%). The inflowing vessels including the left gastric vein and posterior gastric vein/short gastric vein were illustrated in 31 (94.0%) and 17 (51.5%) cases, respectively. The outflowing vessels including the azygos vein, hemiazygos vein, and gastro-renal shunts were seen in 30 (90.9%), 8 (24.2%), and 12 (36.4%) cases, respectively. Findings of CT-MIP portography and conventional angiographic portography were in close agreement (Kappa value ranged from 0.621 to 1.000).

CONCLUSION

CT-MIP venography with 64-row MDCT could be considered as a method for detecting entire gastric fundic and esophageal varices developed from posthepatitic cirrhosis.

Evaluation of patients with esophageal varices after endoscopic injection sclerotherapy using multiplanar reconstruction MDCT images

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to assess the relationship between hemodynamic changes in portosystemic collaterals and the prognosis of patients with esophageal varices after endoscopic injection sclerotherapy using multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) MDCT images.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The subjects of this prospective study were 53 patients who underwent endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophageal varices. We evaluated the reconstructed MPR images of portosystemic collaterals before and after endoscopic injection sclerotherapy. Patients were divided into three groups based on the rate of change in the diameter of the feeding vessel into complete eradication (group A), narrowing (group B), and no change (group C). We analyzed the relationship between hemodynamic change in portosystemic collaterals and prognosis.

RESULTS

The left gastric vein, posterior gastric vein, and left gastric vein plus posterior gastric vein were the main feeding vessels (n=44 [83%] of patients, n=5 [9%], and n=4 [8%], respectively). The proportions of patients of groups A, B, and C were 19% (n=10), 24% (n=13), and 57% (n=30), respectively. The relapse-free rates at 2 years after endoscopic injection sclerotherapy were 100%, 65%, and 52% in groups A, B, and C, respectively (p<0.05). For group C, the relapse-free rate at 2 years after endoscopic injection sclerotherapy of patients with a large-diameter paraesophageal vein (>or= 3 mm, 63%) was significantly higher than in those with a small-diameter paraesophageal vein (<3 mm, 36%; p<0.05). However, there were no significant differences in the survival rate among the three groups.

CONCLUSION

MPR MDCT images on portosystemic collaterals can accurately predict relapse of esophageal varices after endoscopic injection sclerotherapy.

Esophageal capsule endoscopy

Capsule endoscopy is now considered as the first imaging tool for small bowel examination. Recently, new capsule endoscopy applications have been developed, such as esophageal capsule endoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy. Esophageal capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected esophageal disorders is feasible and safe, and could be also an alternative procedure in those patients refusing upper endoscopy. Although large-scale studies are needed to confirm its utility in GERD and cirrhotic patients, current results are encouraging and open a new era in esophageal examination.

Portal hypertension and variceal hemorrhage

Portal hypertension, a major hallmark of cirrhosis, is defined as a portal pressure gradient exceeding 5 mm Hg. In portal hypertension, porto-systemic collaterals decompress the portal circulation and give rise to varices. Successful management of portal hypertension and its complications requires knowledge of the underlying pathophysiology, the pertinent anatomy, and the natural history of the collateral circulation, particularly the gastroesophageal varices.

The budget impact of endoscopic screening for esophageal varices in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of screening for esophageal varices in cirrhosis remains uncertain. Previous analyses found that screening with upper endoscopy (EGD) may not be cost effective versus empiric beta-blocker (BB) therapy. However, these models were conducted before advances in variceal screening, including capsule endoscopy (CE), and they did not measure the budget impact (vs cost-effectiveness) of variceal screening.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the managed care budget impact of variceal screening strategies.

DESIGN

Budget impact model.

SETTING

Hypothetical managed care organization with 1 million covered lives.

PATIENTS

Patients with compensated cirrhosis.

INTERVENTIONS

Compared 5 strategies: (1) empiric BB, (2) screening EGD followed by BB if varices present (EGD --> BB), (3) EGD followed by endoscopic band ligation if varices present (EGD --> EBL), (4) CE followed by BB if varices present (CE --> BB), and (5) CE followed by EBL if varices present (CE --> EBL).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

Per-member per-month cost.

RESULTS

BB was the least expensive, and CE --> EBL was the most expensive. Substituting CE --> BB in lieu of BB cost each member an additional $0.20 per month to subsidize. Compared with CE --> BB, both EGD-based strategies were more expensive. However, CE was not viable in managed care organizations capable of reducing the cost of endoscopy below $410, unless the cost of CE was reduced in lockstep.

LIMITATIONS

Data on CE remain limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening for varices may have an acceptable budget impact but is highly sensitive to local costs of EGD and CE. In managed care organizations willing to subsidize EBL for variceal prophylaxis, it is inefficient to screen with CE compared with EGD.

An economic evaluation of vasoactive agents used in the United Kingdom for acute bleeding oesophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an economic evaluation of terlipressin, octreotide and placebo in the treatment of bleeding oesophageal varices (BOV) where endotherapy could be used concomitantly.

METHODS

A discrete event simulation model was created with transition states: bleeding, no bleeding, no bleeding post transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, post-salvage surgery, and death. Efficacy data on survival, re-bleeding and control of bleeding were obtained from high quality studies reported in Cochrane meta-analyses. Baseline outcomes related to the course of disease and health-state utilities were derived from published sources. Vasoactive treatment costs and all related BOV costs were obtained from published UK sources.

RESULTS

The average aggregated treatment cost per person for all medical interventions at 1 year was lower for terlipressin-treated patients (2623 pounds sterling) compared with those treated using octreotide (2758 pounds sterling) or placebo (2890 pounds sterling). The incremental analysis comparing terlipressin with octreotide and placebo using a cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and cost per life year gained (LYG) approach indicated that terlipressin was the dominant BOV treatment option (i.e. it cost less and it was more effective). Based on a maximum willingness to pay of 20,000 pounds sterling/QALY terlipressin was more effective and cost-saving compared to octreotide and placebo for simulations ranging from 42 days to 2 years. In point estimation analyses octreotide was dominant compared to placebo; however, probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that octreotide was unlikely to be cost-effective compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicated that vasoactive treatment in BOV was cost-saving compared to no vasoactive treatment. Furthermore, terlipressin was the more cost-effective vasoactive treatment for BOV in cirrhotic patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of variceal ligation vs. beta-blockers for primary prevention of variceal bleeding

Although both beta-blockade (BB) and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) are used for primary prevention of variceal bleeding (VB) in patients with cirrhosis with moderate to large esophageal varices (EVs), the more cost-effective option is uncertain. We created a Markov decision model to compare BB and EVL in such patients, examining both cost-effectiveness (cost per life year [LY]) and cost-utility (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]). Outcomes included cost per LY, cost per QALY, proportions of persons with VB, TIPS, and all-cause mortality. EVL and BB were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). When considering only LYs, initial EVL exceeds the benchmark of 50,000 dollars/LY, with an ICER of 98,407 dollars. However, when quality of life (QoL) is considered, EVL is cost-effective compared to BB (ICUR of 25,548 dollars/QALY). In sensitivity analysis, EVL is cost-effective if the yearly risk of EV bleeding is > or = 0.26 (base case 0.15), the relative risk of bleeding on BB is > or = 0.69 (base case 0.58), or if the relative risk of bleeding with EVL is < 0.27 (base case 0.35). The ICUR favored EVL unless the relative risk of bleeding on BB is < 0.46, the relative risk of bleeding with EVL is > 0.46, or the time horizon is < or = 24 months. Whether EVL is "cost-effective" relative to BB therapy for primary prevention of EV bleeding depends on whether LYs or QALYs are considered. If only LYs are considered, then EVL is not cost-effective compared to BB therapy; however, if QoL is considered, then EVL is cost-effective.

What are the risk factors for aggravation of esophageal varices in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The risk factors for aggravation of esophageal varices (EV) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of HCC on the appearance of the red color (RC) sign on EV and also investigate whether risk factors for the appearance of the RC sign differed between patients with and without HCC.

METHODS

A total of 243 patients with cirrhosis (127 with HCC, 116 without HCC) without the RC sign, with no previous variceal hemorrhage, and not on prophylactic treatment for EV were enrolled. The endpoint was defined as being either when the RC sign was first noted, or when variceal bleeding occurred. In patients without HCC, follow-up was discontinued if HCC was discovered. The risk factors were analyzed by Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

In patients with HCC, portal vein tumor thrombus was a statistically independent risk factor (risk ratio [RR] 4.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-15.86), although the presence of HCC was not. A large HCC (> or =50 mm) tended to be a risk factor, but this was not statistically significant (RR 2.50, 95%CI 0.98-6.39). Child-Pugh classification and low platelet count were common risk factors regardless of whether HCC was present or not.

CONCLUSIONS

Portal vein tumor thrombus, but not the presence of HCC, was a significant risk factor for aggravation of EV in patients with HCC. Cirrhotic patients with portal vein tumor thrombus should receive more aggressive management of portal hypertension to prevent aggravation of EV.

Esophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis: multidetector CT esophagography--comparison with endoscopy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the use of multidetector computed tomographic (CT) esophagography to grade esophageal varices and differentiate between varices at low risk and those at high risk for bleeding, with endoscopy as the reference standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was approved by the institutional review board; all subjects gave informed consent. Ninety patients with cirrhosis (65 men, 25 women; mean age, 54.8 years; range, 21-77 years) were prospectively enrolled and underwent endoscopy and CT esophagography. Esophageal varices were graded independently at endoscopy by two endoscopists. CT esophagograms were interpreted retrospectively with a four-point scale by two radiologists blinded to other findings. Interobserver agreement between each radiologist and endoscopist was determined; endoscopic and CT esophagographic grades of esophageal varices were correlated. Radiologist performance for differentiation between low- and high-risk varices for bleeding on the basis of morphology at endoscopy was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic analysis. Patients were interviewed to determine acceptance at both examinations.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven of 90 patients had grade 0, 23 had grade 1, 18 had grade 2, and 12 had grade 3 esophageal varices. Thus, 60 patients were determined to be in a low-risk group and 30 in a high-risk group for variceal bleeding at endoscopy. There was almost perfect agreement in grading esophageal varices between endoscopists. There was close correlation (P < .001) and substantial agreement between endoscopic and CT esophagographic grades. Radiologist performance for differentiating between low- and high-risk varices was 0.931-0.958 (area under receiver operating characteristic curve). Patient interview results revealed that CT esophagography had better acceptance than did endoscopy (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Use of CT esophagography allows grading of esophageal varices and differentiation between low- and high-risk varices and shows better patient acceptance than does endoscopy.

Esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients: evaluation with liver CT

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of routine helical liver CT in the detection and grading of esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 67 consecutive cirrhotic patients who underwent both upper endoscopy and helical liver CT within a 4-week interval were evaluated. The CT protocol included unenhanced, arterial, and portal phases with a collimation of 7-7.5 mm. Two blinded abdominal imagers (6 and 7 years' experience) retrospectively interpreted all CT images to detect the presence of esophageal varices on a 5-point confidence scale and measure the largest varix identified. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed, and the correlation between CT measurements and endoscopic grading, the reference standard, was assessed.

RESULTS

The variceal detection rates for the observers was 92% (11/12) and 92% (11/12) for large (i.e., clinically significant) varices, 53% (16/30) and 60% (18/30) for small varices, and 64% (27/42) and 69% (29/42) for all varices. The area under the ROC curve for the detection of esophageal varices of any size was 0.77 (observer 1) and 0.80 (observer 2). CT variceal grading showed a strong correlation with endoscopic grading for both observers (p < or = 0.001). Using a variceal diameter threshold of 3 mm on CT, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for distinguishing large esophageal varices from small or no varices were 92% (11/12), 84% (46/55), and 85% (57/67), respectively, for both observers.

CONCLUSION

Liver CT is useful for the detection and grading of esophageal varices. A diameter of 3 mm may be an appropriate screening threshold for large clinically significant varices.

Prevention of the development of varices and first portal hypertensive bleeding episode

Variceal bleeding is a serious complication in patients with cirrhosis. Although bleeding related mortality rates have fallen recently, it continues to be amongst the leading causes of death. Cirrhotics should be screened for varices at diagnosis. Data on preventing formation/growth of oesophageal varices (pre-primary prophylaxis) are conflicting, with insufficient evidence to use beta-blockers. In order to prevent first bleeding, there is strong evidence in patients with medium/large size oesophageal varices that either non-selective beta-blockers or banding ligation can be used. Banding is superior with respect to bleeding but mortality is similar. Non-selective beta-blockers should remain first line treatment being effective, cheap and without serious complications. In contrast banding ligation is more expensive, requires specialised staff, cannot prevent bleeding from portal hypertensive gastropathy and can cause iatrogenic bleeding. Patients with small varices, particularly if they have progressive liver disease also benefit from beta-blockers, but fewer studies confirm this therapeutic approach.

The prevalence and risk factors associated with esophageal varices in subjects with hepatitis C and advanced fibrosis

BACKGROUND

The factors predictive of the presence or the absence of esophageal varices in hepatitis C virus (HCV) and advanced fibrosis have not been defined.

OBJECTIVES

To define the prevalence of esophageal varices and the factors that are positively and negatively with such varices in hepatitis C and advanced fibrosis.

DESIGN

A prospective study of esophageal varices and associated risk factors in subjects with hepatitis C and advanced fibrosis.

SETTING

Prerandomization data from the HALT-C (hepatitis C long-term antiviral treatment against cirrhosis) clinical trial.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION

Subjects with bridging fibrosis or cirrhosis, who were virologic nonresponders to treatment with pegylated interferon alpha 2a and ribavirin, underwent endoscopy.

RESULTS

Sixteen percent of subjects with bridging fibrosis (95/598) and 39% of subjects with cirrhosis (164/418) had varices (P < .0001); 2% of subjects with bridging fibrosis (13/598) and 11% of those with cirrhosis (48/418) had medium or large varices. Subjects with bridging fibrosis and varices had a significantly lower platelet count and higher bilirubin and international normalized ratio (INR) compared with those without varices, suggesting that the biopsy may have underestimated the severity of fibrosis. A platelet count >150,000/mm(3) was associated with a negative predictive value of 99% for esophageal varices. By logistic regression modeling, African American race and female sex were protective, whereas a lower platelet count and higher bilirubin and INR predicted varices (c statistic, 0.758).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of having varices increases with decreasing platelet counts, increasing bilirubin, and INR. The probability of having medium or large varices at platelet counts >150,000/mm(3) is negligible in this population.

Hepatic venous pressure gradient in cirrhosis: correlation with the size of varices, bleeding, ascites, and child's status

The hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) clearly reflects portal pressure in cirrhotic portal hypertension. Its relation with variceal bleeding has been well studied. We undertook to study the relation of HVPG to variceal size, Child's status, and etiology of cirrhosis. Patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension with esophageal varices underwent HVPG measurement as part of a prospective evaluation. One hundred seventy-six cirrhotics with varices (M:F, 140:36; mean age, 42.6 +/- 13.4 years), 104 with CLD related to viral etiology, 40 with alcoholic liver disease, 26 cryptogenic with cirrhosis, and 6 with miscellaneous causes of CLD underwent HVPG measurement. The mean HVPG was lower in patients with small varices (n = 77; 14.6 +/- 5.9 mm Hg) than in patients with large varices (n = 99; 19.2 +/- 6.6 mm Hg; P < 0.01). In patients with large varices, the mean HVPG in bleeders (n = 37) was higher than in nonbleeders (n = 62) (21.7 +/- 7.2 vs 17.9 +/- 6.2 mm Hg; P < 0.01). The mean HVPG was significantly higher in Child's B (n = 97; 17.4 +/- 6.9 mm Hg) and C (n = 56; 19.0 +/- 5.7 mm Hg) compared to Child's A cirrhotics (n = 23; 12.2 +/- 5.9 mm Hg; P < 0.01), and Child's C compared to Child's B cirrhotics (P = 0.05). HVPG was higher in alcoholic compared to nonalcoholic cirrhotics (20.8 +/- 7.3 vs 16.4 +/- 6.3 mm Hg; P < 0.05), but this was not significant in multivariate analysis. The HVPG was comparable between hepatitis B- and hepatitis C virus-related cirrhotics (P = 0.8). Cirrhotics with ascites had a higher HVPG than those without ascites (18.5 +/- 5.6 vs 16.6 +/- 7.6 mm Hg; P = 0.02). In multivariate analysis, only Child's status, size of varices, and variceal bleed predicted higher HVPG. HVPG is higher in cirrhotics with large varices and a history of bleed. There is a good correlation between HVPG and large varices, bleeder status, and ascites. A higher HVPG reflects more severe liver disease. The etiology of liver disease did not influence the portal pressure.

Comparison of endoscopic variceal ligation and nadolol plus isosorbide-5-mononitrate in the prevention of first variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND

Both drug therapy and banding ligation are widely used in the prevention of first variceal bleeding. This study compared the efficacy and safety of band ligation vs. combination of beta-blocker and nitrate for the prevention of first bleeding in patients with cirrhosis and high-risk esophageal varices.

METHODS

A total of 61 patients with cirrhosis with moderate or severe esophageal varices associated with red color signs but without history of variceal bleeding were randomized to band ligation (30 patients) or treatment with nadolol plus isosorbide-5-mononitrate (ISMN) (31 patients). In the ligation group, multiband ligator with 4 elastic bands was applied during each session. Ligation was repeated at intervals of 4 weeks until variceal obliteration was achieved. In the combination group, the dose of nadolol was sufficient to reduce the pulse rate by 25%. ISMN 1 tablet 20 mg qd or bid was administered.

RESULTS

Both groups were similar in baseline characteristics. In the ligation group, variceal obliteration was achieved in 24 patients (80%), at a mean of 3.2 +/- 0.9 ligation sessions and 11.7 +/- 3.2 elastic bands. In the combination group, the mean daily doses of nadolol and ISMN administered were 40 +/- 14 mg and 40 +/- 12 mg, respectively. During a median follow-up of approximately 23 months, 5 patients (17%) in the ligation group and 8 patients (26%) in the combination group had upper-gastrointestinal bleeding (p = 0.53). Esophageal variceal bleeding occurred in 3 patients (10%) in the ligation group and 6 (19%) in the combination group (p = 0.42). By multivariate Cox analysis, presence of ascites was the only factor predictive of variceal bleeding. Minor complications were noted in 5 patients (17%) in the ligation group and 3 (10%) in the combination group (p = 0.47). Eight patients in the ligation group and 6 in the combination group died (p = 0.49). One (3%) patient in the ligation group and 3 (10%) in the combination group died of uncontrollable variceal bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary results suggest that endoscopic variceal ligation is similar to the combination of nadolol plus ISMN with regard to effectiveness and safety in the prevention of first variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

Improved prognosis of cirrhosis patients with esophageal varices and thrombocytopenia treated by endoscopic variceal ligation plus partial splenic embolization

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of the combination of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and partial splenic embolization (PSE) compared with EVL alone in cirrhosis patients with thrombocytopenia. In a prospective study, 84 cirrhosis patients with esophageal varices and thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 50,000/mm(3)) underwent EVL plus PSE (N = 42) or EVL alone (N = 42). Primary end points assessed during the follow-up period included the recurrence of varices, progression to variceal bleeding, and death. Comparison between combined treatment and variceal ligation alone by multivariate analysis showed a hazard ratio of 0.44 for the recurrence of varices (P = 0.02), 0.19 for progression to variceal bleeding (P = 0.01), and 0.31 for death (P = 0.04). These results suggest that the combination of EVL plus PSE can prevent the recurrence of varices, progression to variceal bleeding, and death in cirrhosis patients with esophageal varices and thrombocytopenia.