Long-term results of a clinical trial of nadolol with or without isosorbide mononitrate for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis

Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis: A comparison of different strategies

Patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices bleed at a yearly rate of 5%-15%, and, when variceal hemorrhage develops, mortality reaches 20%. Patients are deemed at high risk of bleeding when they present with medium or large-sized varices, when they have red signs on varices of any size and when they are classified as Child-Pugh C and have varices of any size. In order to avoid variceal bleeding and death, individuals with cirrhosis at high risk of bleeding must undergo primary prophylaxis, for which currently recommended strategies are the use of traditional non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) (i.e., propranolol or nadolol), carvedilol (a NSBB with additional alpha-adrenergic blocking effect) or endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL). The superiority of one of these alternatives over the others is controversial. While EVL might be superior to pharmacological therapy regarding the prevention of the first bleeding episode, either traditional NSBBs or carvedilol seem to play a more prominent role in mortality reduction, probably due to their capacity of preventing other complications of cirrhosis through the decrease in portal hypertension. A sequential strategy, in which patients unresponsive to pharmacological therapy would be submitted to endoscopic treatment, or the combination of pharmacological and endoscopic strategies might be beneficial and deserve further investigation.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for Liver Cirrhosis 2020

The first edition of the clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis was published in 2010, and the second edition was published in 2015 by the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE). The revised third edition was recently published in 2020. This version has become a joint guideline by the JSGE and the Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH). In addition to the clinical questions (CQs), background questions (BQs) are new items for basic clinical knowledge, and future research questions (FRQs) are newly added clinically important items. Concerning the clinical treatment of liver cirrhosis, new findings have been reported over the past 5 years since the second edition. In this revision, we decided to match the international standards as much as possible by referring to the latest international guidelines. Newly developed agents for various complications have also made great progress. In comparison with the latest global guidelines, such as the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), we are introducing data based on the evidence for clinical practice in Japan. The flowchart for nutrition therapy was reviewed to be useful for daily medical care by referring to overseas guidelines. We also explain several clinically important items that have recently received focus and were not mentioned in the last editions. This digest version describes the issues related to the management of liver cirrhosis and several complications in clinical practice. The content begins with a diagnostic algorithm, the revised flowchart for nutritional therapy, and refracted ascites, which are of great importance to patients with cirrhosis. In addition to the updated antiviral therapy for hepatitis B and C liver cirrhosis, the latest treatments for non-viral cirrhosis, such as alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (ASH/NASH) and autoimmune-related cirrhosis, are also described. It also covers the latest evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of liver cirrhosis complications, namely gastrointestinal bleeding, ascites, hepatorenal syndrome and acute kidney injury, hepatic encephalopathy, portal thrombus, sarcopenia, muscle cramp, thrombocytopenia, pruritus, hepatopulmonary syndrome, portopulmonary hypertension, and vitamin D deficiency, including BQ, CQ and FRQ. Finally, this guideline covers prognosis prediction and liver transplantation, especially focusing on several new findings since the last version. Since this revision is a joint guideline by both societies, the same content is published simultaneously in the official English journal of JSGE and JSH.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis 2020

The first edition of the clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis was published in 2010, and the second edition was published in 2015 by the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE). The revised third edition was recently published in 2020. This version has become a joint guideline by the JSGE and the Japanese Society of Hepatology (JSH). In addition to the clinical questions (CQs), background questions (BQs) are new items for basic clinical knowledge, and future research questions (FRQs) are newly added clinically important items. Concerning the clinical treatment of liver cirrhosis, new findings have been reported over the past 5 years since the second edition. In this revision, we decided to match the international standards as much as possible by referring to the latest international guidelines. Newly developed agents for various complications have also made great progress. In comparison with the latest global guidelines, such as the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), we are introducing data based on the evidence for clinical practice in Japan. The flowchart for nutrition therapy was reviewed to be useful for daily medical care by referring to overseas guidelines. We also explain several clinically important items that have recently received focus and were not mentioned in the last editions. This digest version describes the issues related to the management of liver cirrhosis and several complications in clinical practice. The content begins with a diagnostic algorithm, the revised flowchart for nutritional therapy, and refracted ascites, which are of great importance to patients with cirrhosis. In addition to the updated antiviral therapy for hepatitis B and C liver cirrhosis, the latest treatments for non-viral cirrhosis, such as alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (ASH/NASH) and autoimmune-related cirrhosis, are also described. It also covers the latest evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of liver cirrhosis complications, namely gastrointestinal bleeding, ascites, hepatorenal syndrome and acute kidney injury, hepatic encephalopathy, portal thrombus, sarcopenia, muscle cramp, thrombocytopenia, pruritus, hepatopulmonary syndrome, portopulmonary hypertension, and vitamin D deficiency, including BQ, CQ and FRQ. Finally, this guideline covers prognosis prediction and liver transplantation, especially focusing on several new findings since the last version. Since this revision is a joint guideline by both societies, the same content is published simultaneously in the official English journal of JSGE and JSH.

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.

Pathophysiology and Management of Variceal Bleeding

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

Primary prevention of bleeding from esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis: An update and review of the literature

All patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension should be stratified by risk groups to individualize different therapeutic strategies to increase the effectiveness of treatment. In this regard, the development of primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding and its management according to the severity of portal hypertension may be promising. This paper is to describe the modern principles of primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis. The PubMed and EMbase databases, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were used to search for relevant publications from 1999 to 2019. The results suggested that depending on the severity of portal hypertension, patients with cirrhosis should be divided into those who need preprimary prophylaxis, which aims to prevent the formation of esophageal varices, and those who require measures that aim to prevent esophageal variceal bleeding. In subclinical portal hypertension, therapy should be etiological and pathogenetic. Cirrhosis with clinically significant portal hypertension should receive nonselective β-blockers if they have small esophageal varices and risk factors for variceal bleeding. Nonselective β-blockers are the first-line drugs for the primary prevention of bleeding from medium to large-sized esophageal varices. Endoscopic band ligation is indicated for the patients who are intolerant to nonselective β-blockers or in the case of contraindications to pharmacological therapy. In summary, the stratification of cirrhotic patients by the severity of portal hypertension and an individual approach to the choice of treatment may increase the effectiveness of therapy as well as improve survival rate of these patients.

Small Esophageal Varices in Patients with Cirrhosis-Should We Treat Them?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The natural history and classification systems of small varices (≤ 5 mm in diameter) in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension are summarized. Studies that assessed the course of and therapeutic intervention for small varices are discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current non-invasive methods show suboptimal sensitivity to detect small varices in patients with cirrhosis. Next to etiological therapy, hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG)-guided non-selective betablocker or carvedilol treatment has shown to impact on natural history of small varices.

SUMMARY

The main therapeutic focus in cirrhotic patients with small varices is the cure of the underlying etiology. The optimal management of small varices should include measurement of HVPG. A pharmacological decrease in HVPG by non-selective betablocker therapy of ≥ 10% reduces the risk of progression to large varices, first variceal bleeding, and hepatic decompensation. If HVPG is not available, we would recommend carvedilol 12.5 mg q.d. for treatment of small varices in compensated patients without severe ascites. Only if small esophageal varices (EV) are not treated or in hemodynamic non-responders, follow-up endoscopies should be performed in 1-2 years of intervals considering the activity of liver disease or if hepatic decompensation occurs.

Non-invasive evaluation of portal hypertension using ultrasound elastography

Portal hypertension (PH) leads to serious complications, such as bleeding from gastroesophageal varices, ascites and portosystemic encephalopathy in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD). Gold standard methods for assessing PH and its complications include the measurement of hepatic venous pressure gradient and endoscopy; however, these are invasive, expensive and not available at all centres. Therefore, non-invasive alternatives have been the subject of extensive investigation over the last 20years. The present review focuses on the role of ultrasound elastography - a novel group of non-invasive techniques used to measure stiffness in target organs. In the context of CLD these methods are used to identify the presence of PH, its severity, and the risk of PH-related complications. The rationale, accumulated evidence, advantages and limitations of liver and spleen stiffness measurements evaluated by different ultrasound elastography techniques in patients with advanced CLD is discussed. Recent data regarding the use of ultrasound elastography techniques in patients with non-cirrhotic forms of PH are also described.

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.

Combined therapies versus monotherapies for the first variceal bleeding in patients with high-risk varices: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The effect of combined therapies (among non-selected beta-blockers [NSBB], endoscopic therapy, and other treatments) on the first variceal bleeding has been evaluated in several randomized controlled trials previously, and the results were controversial. We performed this meta-analysis to assess the effect of combined therapies in patients with high-risk varices without previous variceal bleeding.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for eligible trials. Manual searches were also performed for additional studies. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding, variceal bleeding, mortality, and adverse events were evaluated as end-points by meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled trials with 1571 patients were included. Compared with the NSBB (propranolol or nadolol) or endoscopic therapy alone, all of the combined therapies did not demonstrate significant improvements in variceal bleeding, total upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and mortality. Only the combinations of isosorbide-mononitrate or spironolactone with NSBB tended to decrease the risk of variceal bleeding when compared with the use of NSBB alone (isosorbide-mononitrate plus NSBB vs NSBB: odds ratio = 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.40-1.13, P = 0.13; spironolactone plus NSBB vs NSBB: odds ratio = 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.10-1.69, P = 0.22). Adverse events were more frequently observed in the combined therapy groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidences, no combined therapy can be recommended as the first-line treatment for the primary prevention of variceal bleeding currently. Further studies with large sample sizes and long-term follow up are warranted.

Pre-primary and Primary Prophylaxis of Variceal Hemorrhage

Variceal hemorrhage is a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension. Thus, prevention of variceal formation (pre-primary prophylaxis) or at least prevention of variceal bleeding are important goals to improve life quality and—if possible—survival of patients with liver cirrhosis. Interruption of the underlying cause of liver disease is the most successful approach, which, however, often fails. For this situation interruption or modulation of different pathophysiological mechanisms leading to fibrosis, hyperdynamic circulation and portal hypertension have been shown effective in animal models. But few could be translated to humans. By contrast, different steps to prevent first bleeding from varices have proven successful in many clinical trials. These applied mainly drugs to lower portal pressure, such as nonselective β-blockers, or endoscopic obliteration of varices, while prophylactic shunt procedures are not advised.

Variceal and other portal hypertension related bleeding

Variceal bleeding is one of the commonest and most severe complications of liver cirrhosis. Even with the current best medical care, mortality from variceal bleeding is still around 20%. When cirrhosis is diagnosed, varices are present in about 30-40% of compensated patients and in 60% of those who present with ascites. Once varices have been diagnosed, the overall incidence of variceal bleeding is in the order of 25% at two years. Variceal size is the most useful predictor for variceal bleeding, other predictors are severity of liver dysfunction (Child-Pugh classification) and the presence of red wale marks on the variceal wall. The current consensus is that every cirrhotic patient should be endoscopically screened for varices at the time of diagnosis to detect those requiring prophylactic treatment. Non-selective beta-adrenergic blockers (NSBB) and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) have been shown effective in the prevention of first variceal bleeding. The current recommendation for treating acute variceal bleeding is to start vasoactive drug therapy early (ideally during the transferral or to arrival to hospital, even if active bleeding is only suspected) and performing EBL. Once bleeding is controlled, combination therapy with NSBB + EBL should be used to prevent rebleeding. In patients at high risk of treatment failure despite of using this approach, an early covered-TIPS within 72 h (ideally 24 h) should be considered. Data on management of gastric variceal bleeding is limited. No clear recommendation for primary prophylaxis can be done. In acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding, vasoactive agents together with cyanoacrylate (CA) injection seem to be the treatment of choice. Further CA injections and/or NSBB may be used to prevent rebleeding. TIPS or Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration when TIPS is contraindicated may be used as a rescue therapy.

[Mexican consensus on portal hypertension]

The aim of the Mexican Consensus on Portal Hypertension was to develop documented guidelines to facilitate clinical practice when dealing with key events of the patient presenting with portal hypertension and variceal bleeding. The panel of experts was made up of Mexican gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and endoscopists, all distinguished professionals. The document analyzes themes of interest in the following modules: preprimary and primary prophylaxis, acute variceal hemorrhage, and secondary prophylaxis. The management of variceal bleeding has improved considerably in recent years. Current information indicates that the general management of the cirrhotic patient presenting with variceal bleeding should be carried out by a multidisciplinary team, with such an approach playing a major role in the final outcome. The combination of drug and endoscopic therapies is recommended for initial management; vasoactive drugs should be started as soon as variceal bleeding is suspected and maintained for 5 days. After the patient is stabilized, urgent diagnostic endoscopy should be carried out by a qualified endoscopist, who then performs the corresponding endoscopic variceal treatment. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be regarded as an integral part of treatment, started upon hospital admittance and continued for 5 days. If there is treatment failure, rescue therapies should be carried out immediately, taking into account that interventional radiology therapies are very effective in controlling refractory variceal bleeding. These guidelines have been developed for the purpose of achieving greater clinical efficacy and are based on the best evidence of portal hypertension that is presently available.

Assessing portal hypertension in liver diseases

Portal hypertension is a common complication of chronic liver diseases and is responsible for most clinical consequences of cirrhosis, which represent the more frequent causes of death and liver transplantation in these patients. This review is aimed at clarifying the state-of-the art assessment of portal hypertension and at discussing recent developments in this field. Particular attention is paid to new noninvasive techniques that will be soon available for potential routine use.

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.

Primary prevention of variceal hemorrhage

Variceal hemorrhage is one of the leading causes of death in patients with cirrhosis, with the 6-week mortality after each episode ranging from 15% to 20%. The two main strategies for primary prevention of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis and varices are the administration of nonselective β-blockers or the obliteration of varices with use of endoscopic band ligation. In this review, we present and critically review the latest data on primary prevention of variceal hemorrhage. We advocate that nonselective β-blockers should be the first line therapy, and band ligation should be offered only in cases of intolerance or side effects. We also explore potential future therapies based on preliminary experimental and clinical data.

Meta-analysis: isosorbide-mononitrate alone or with either beta-blockers or endoscopic therapy for the management of oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

The evidence concerning the use of isosorbide-mononitrate (IsMn) for oesophageal varices is equivocal.

AIM

To assess the effects of IsMn for patients with oesophageal varices and no previous bleeding (primary prevention) or previous variceal bleeding (secondary prevention).

METHODS

Systematic review with meta-analyses of randomized trials on IsMn alone or with beta-blockers or endoscopic therapy for oesophageal varices. Electronic and manual searches were combined. Randomized trials on primary and secondary prevention were included. The primary outcome measure was mortality. Intention-to-treat random effects meta-analyses were performed. The robustness of the results was assessed in trial sequential analyses.

RESULTS

Ten randomized trials on primary and 17 on secondary prevention were included. Evidence of bias was identified. No apparent effect of IsMn on mortality compared with placebo or beta-blockers or IsMn plus beta-blockers vs. beta-blockers was identified. Compared with endoscopic therapy, IsMn plus beta-blockers had no apparent effect on bleeding, but did seem to reduce mortality in secondary prevention (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.89), but not in primary prevention. The effect of IsMn plus beta-blockers on mortality in secondary prevention was not confirmed in trial sequential analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Isosorbide-mononitrate used alone or in combination with beta blockers does not seem to offer any reduction in bleeding in the primary or secondary prevention of oesophageal varices. Compared with endoscopic therapy, there may be a survival advantage in using IsMn and beta-blockers, but additional large multicentre trials are needed to verify this finding.

Clinical pharmacology of portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is an increase in pressure in the portal vein and its tributaries. It is defined as a portal pressure gradient (the difference in pressure between the portal vein and the hepatic veins) greater than 5 mm Hg. Although this gradient defines portal hypertension, a gradient of 10 mm Hg or greater defines clinically significant portal hypertension, because this pressure gradient predicts the development of varices, decompensation of cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The most direct consequence of portal hypertension is the development of gastroesophageal varices that may rupture and lead to the development of variceal hemorrhage. This article reviews the pathophysiologic bases of the different pharmacologic treatments for portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis and places them in the context of the natural history of varices and variceal hemorrhage.

Overview of the methods and therapies for the primary prevention of variceal bleeding

Patients with cirrhosis develop varices at a rate of 5% per year, and a third of patients with high-risk varices will bleed. The mortality associated with variceal haemorrhage is typically 20%, and still exceeds that of myocardial infarction. Current options to prevent the first variceal bleed include noncardioselective beta-blockers or variceal band ligation. In patients with medium-to-large esophageal varices, both therapies reduce the risk of bleeding by 50% or more. The choice of therapy should take into account patient choice and local availability; although for most patients drug therapy is the preferred first-line treatment. There has been recent interest in carvedilol, with promising initial data. Further studies are necessary before universal recommendation. There is no role for drug therapy in patients without varices, and the use of beta-blockers for patients with small varices is controversial.

Role of endoscopy in primary prophylaxis for esophageal variceal bleeding

Cirrhosis is the leading cause of portal hypertension in the Western world. From a clinical standpoint, the most significant consequence of portal hypertension is the development of esophageal varices. Despite the many advances in the management of variceal bleeding, it remains a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension. Primary prophylaxis to prevent the first bleeding episode in patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices is therefore critically important in the management of patients with cirrhosis.

Early identification of haemodynamic response to pharmacotherapy is essential for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with 'high-risk' varices

BACKGROUND

A beta-blocker is recommended for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding; however, only one-third have hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) response. The role of addition of isosorbide-5-mononitrate (ISMN) to beta-blocker and benefits of HVPG-guided 'a la carte' approach remain unclear.

AIM

To determine the benefits of HVPG-guided pharmacotherapy in primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding using beta-blocker and ISMN.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients of cirrhosis, with high-risk varices, with no previous variceal bleeding were included. After baseline HVPG, patients received incremental propranolol to achieve HR of 55/min. After one-month, HVPG was repeated to determine response (<12 mmHg or >or=20% reduction). ISMN was added in nonresponders and HVPG repeated. Patients were followed up for 24 months.

RESULTS

Of 56 patients (age 47 +/- 13, males 79%) from 89 eligible patients, 21 (38%) responded to beta-blocker alone. Six additional patients responded to combination. Thus, overall 48% (27/56) patients responded. Variceal bleeding occurred in seven of 56 (13%) patients [one of 27 (4%) responder, five of 23 (22%) nonresponders and one of six (17%) with unknown response; P = N.S.]. The actuarial probability of variceal bleeding at median 24 months was 4% in responders and 22% in nonresponders (P < 0.05). Ten (18%) patients developed adverse effects to propranolol and six of 35 (17%) to nitrates requiring dose reduction. Risk factors of variceal bleed were grade IV varices and haemodynamic nonresponse.

CONCLUSIONS

For primary prophylaxis, a beta-blocker is effective in 38% and addition of ISMN raises the response rate to about half of patients. The HVPG-guided 'a la carte' approach may be considered for these patients.

Primary prophylaxis of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding: consensus recommendations of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver

The Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) set up a Working Party on Portal Hypertension in 2002, with a mandate to develop consensus guidelines on various clinical aspects of portal hypertension relevant to disease patterns and clinical practice in the Asia-Pacific region. Variceal bleeding is a consequence of portal hypertension, which, in turn, is the major complication of liver cirrhosis. Primary prophylaxis to prevent the first bleed from varices is one of the most important strategies for reducing the mortality in cirrhotic patients. Experts predominantly from the Asia-Pacific region were requested to identify the different aspects of primary prophylaxis and develop the consensus guidelines. The APASL Working Party on Portal Hypertension evaluated the various therapies that have been used for the prevention of first variceal bleeding. A 2-day meeting was held on January 12 and 13, 2007, at New Delhi, India, to discuss and finalize the consensus statements. Only those statements that were unanimously approved by the experts were accepted. These statements were circulated to all the experts and were subsequently presented at the annual conference of the APASL at Kyoto, Japan, in March 2007.

Review article: the modern management of portal hypertension--primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND

Variceal bleeding is a life-threatening complication of liver cirrhosis with a high probability of recurrence. Treatment to prevent first bleeding or rebleeding is mandatory.

AIM

To provide an overview of the current knowledge on the best evidence-based therapeutic options to prevent first or recurrent bleeding from oesophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

For the preparation of this narrative review, we sought to analyse randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and side effects of pharmacological or endoscopic therapy for the primary and secondary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding.

RESULTS

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and nonselective beta-blockers are both effective in preventing first bleeding. Until more long-term data are available, nonselective beta-blockers should be the first treatment option because of less severe side effects. EBL is an alternative when beta-blockers are contraindicated or not tolerated. Patient preference may also be considered. For prevention of rebleeding, nonselective beta-blockers (preferably in association with isosorbide-5-mononitrate) or EBL are both effective and good alternative treatments. A combination of both treatments may be the best alternative.

CONCLUSIONS

A great improvement in the prevention of variceal bleeding has emerged over the last years. However, further therapeutic options that combine higher efficacy, better tolerance and fewer side effects are needed.

The management of portal hypertension: rational basis, available treatments and future options

Variceal bleeding is the last step in a chain of events initiated by an increase in portal pressure, followed by the development and progressive dilation of varices until these finally rupture and bleed. This sequence of events might be prevented - and reversed - by achieving a sufficient decrease in portal pressure. A different approach is the use of local endoscopic treatments at the varices. This article reviews the rationale for the management of patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, the current recommendations for the prevention and treatment of variceal bleeding, and outlines the unsolved issues and the perspectives for the future opened by new research developments.

Primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding in cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is a common and severe complication of liver cirrhosis. The risk of bleeding increases with the size of varices, red wheal marks and disease severity. Noninvasive tests are not accurate enough for the diagnosis of varices, so all patients with cirrhosis should be screened by endoscopy. Nonselective beta-blockers (propranolol, nadolol) are indicated for primary prophylaxis in patients with medium/large varices, and for those with small varices and red signs or advanced liver failure (Child C). In such patients, beta-blockers have been shown to reduce the risk of bleeding from 25 to 15%. There is no evidence to support using beta-blockers with nitrates or spironolactone. In patients with contraindication or intolerance to beta-blockers, endoscopic band ligations are indicated.

Portal hypertension: pre-primary and primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

In liver cirrhosis, variceal bleeding is the last in a chain of events initiated by the increase in portal pressure (estimated in clinical practice by the hepatic venous pressure gradient). When hepatic venous pressure gradient goes above 10 mmHg the patient is at risk of developing varices, and when hepatic venous pressure gradient reaches 12 mmHg variceal bleeding might develop. Currently, there is not any effective therapy for the prevention of the development of varices. When varices are small, beta-adrenergic blockers might prevent the enlargement of the varices, and may reduce the risk of variceal bleeding. In patients with medium to large varices, beta-blockers are clearly effective in reducing the risk of variceal bleeding. Endoscopic band ligation might be more effective than beta-blockers, but available evidence is still very weak.

Emerging drugs for complications of end-stage liver disease

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of end-stage liver disease is rising rapidly and constitutes a major healthcare burden currently. Many cases are diagnosed at a later stage when liver transplantation is the only effective treatment option. There is thus an urgent need for novel treatments to reverse the earlier stages of cirrhosis as well as to treat the many associated life-threatening complications.

OBJECTIVES

To review the current drugs available for treating the complications of advanced liver disease. To address novel treatment strategies that are in development, with particular reference to the rapidly developing area of antifibrotic therapy. To assess how the obstacles that have so far impeded the development of effective new drugs for end-stage liver disease may be overcome in the future.

METHODS

The literature was reviewed to define current therapies and therapies in clinical trials. We used the current models of the molecular basis of liver fibrogenesis to determine potential new therapeutic targets for antifibrotic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Insights into the pathogenesis of liver injury and fibrosis have opened up new avenues for therapy and there are now candidates and targets with real potential for the development of a new generation of antifibrotic therapies.

The future treatment of portal hypertension

Increased understanding of the hyperdynamic circulation syndrome has resulted in novel therapeutic approaches, some of which have already reached clinical practice. Central to the hyperdynamic circulation syndrome is an imbalance between the increase in different vasodilators (foremost among which is nitric oxide) and the compensatory increase in vasoconstrictors--usually accompanied by a blunted response. This chapter discusses the role of endothelin in the pathogenesis of the syndrome and in future treatment approaches. A relatively new area of research in this field is the role of infection and inflammation in the initiation and maintenance of the hyperdynamic circulation syndrome. The use of antibiotics in the setting of acute variceal bleeding is standard practice. Studies have suggested that chronic manipulation of the intestinal flora could have beneficial effects in the treatment of portal hypertension. The bile salts are another novel and interesting target. Although their vasoactive properties have been known for some time, recent data demonstrate that their effects could be central in the pathogenesis of the hyperdynamic circulation syndrome, and that manipulation of the composition of the bile acid pool could be a therapeutic approach to portal hypertension. Finally, hypoxia and angiogenesis play a role in the development of portal hypertension and the formation of collaterals. This role needs to be further defined but it appears likely that this phenomenon is yet another target for therapeutic intervention.

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.

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.

Pharmacologic therapy of portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is a progressively debilitating complication of cirrhosis and a principal cause of mortality in patients who have hepatic decompensation. During the last few decades, significant clinical advances in the prevention of initial variceal hemorrhage, the management of acute variceal hemorrhage, and the prevention of recurrent variceal hemorrhage have reduced the morbidity and mortality of this lethal complication of cirrhosis. This article discusses the pharmacologic treatment of portal hypertension, including preprimary prophylaxis, prevention of a first variceal hemorrhage, treatment of acute variceal hemorrhage, and secondary prophylaxis of a variceal hemorrhage.

Pharmacologic therapy for gastrointestinal bleeding due to portal hypertension and esophageal varices

Cirrhosis results in portal hypertension in many patients. The major complications of portal hypertension include development of ascites and esophageal or gastric varices. Varices lead to hemorrhage and death in a significant proportion of patients. This review focuses on the pharmacologic approach to management of portal hypertension in patients at risk of variceal hemorrhage, or those who have already had variceal bleeding. Pharmacologic therapy is used for 1) primary prevention of bleeding, 2) management of acute bleeding, and 3) prevention of recurrent bleeding (secondary prophylaxis). For acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage, a variety of pharmacologic agents are used, including somatostatin, octreotide, vapreotide, lanreotide, terlipressin, and vasopressin (with nitrates). For primary and secondary prevention of esophageal variceal hemorrhage, beta-blockers remain the mainstay therapy.

Portal hypertension-related bleeding: management of difficult cases

Many advances have occurred in the management of varices over the years. Guidelines based on sound evidence have been developed to manage the esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Less is known about how best to manage some of the more difficult cases of bleeding related to portal hypertension. This article reviews evidence in the hypertensive gastropathy, ectopic varices, and management of patients who are intolerant of or have not responded to beta-blocker therapy. The goal of this article is to review the sparse available evidence and to suggest reasonable management options.

Beta blockers in portal hypertension. Are they really a good option?

Non-selective beta blockers are very useful drugs in preventing first variceal bleeding and re-bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. These drugs work in two ways: 1) by blocking beta1 receptors and reducing cardiac output, and 2) by blocking beta2 receptors, producing splanchnic vasoconstriction and reducing portal flow. Consequently, they reduce portal pressure. In primary prophylaxis, beta blockers reduced the bleeding risk from 30 to 15%; in secondary prophylaxis, this risk decreased from 60 to 42% in the first year. Heart rate decrease does not necessary correlate with reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). When this gradient is reduced to less than 12 mmHg, the patient will not bleed; when this is reduced > 20% from basal values bleeding risk is extremely low, estimated at 9% at 2 years. The only way to know whether the patient has become a responder is to measure the HVPG. Additionally, by means of this method we also can identify the non-responders, who have a higher rate of re-bleeding, between 54 and 64%, and can attempt to utilize a more aggressive therapy, such as adding isosorbide mononitrate to the beta blocker or combining the beta blocker with endoscopic ligation. These options are discussed in the present review.

The management of portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is an almost unavoidable complication of cirrhosis, and it is responsible for the more lethal complications of this syndrome. Appearance of these complications represents the major cause of death and liver transplantation in patients who have cirrhosis. This article highlights treatment modalities in use for managing portal hypertension and those that may be available in the future.

Influence of recent advances in medical management on clinical outcomes of cirrhosis

Cirrhosis and its disease-related complications are the 12th leading cause of mortality among U.S. adults and are the 5th leading cause of death for individuals aged 45 to 54 years. Hospitalization costs for disease-related complications are estimated at 18,000 dollars per episode of care, and 10% of admitted patients die. Despite these ominous findings, the survival rate of patients with cirrhosis has improved during the past 2 decades. This observation coincides with the conducting and reporting of high-quality randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Therefore, the improved prognosis in cirrhosis may be related to the effective translation of research findings to clinical practice for this patient population. Although explicit data to support this claim are not available, this article reviews the reported trends in clinical outcomes for patients with cirrhosis and the existence of evidence-based medical information that is available to care for these chronically ill patients.

Beta blocker prophylaxis for patients with variceal hemorrhage

GOALS

To characterize beta blocker therapy for the primary and secondary prevention of variceal hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND

Variceal hemorrhage is one of the more frequent and severe complications of portal hypertension due to liver disease. Beta blocker therapy has been demonstrated to decrease risk of first bleed in patients with evidence of varices and recurrent bleeding and mortality in patients with history of prior variceal hemorrhage.

STUDY

A total of 106 patients with liver disease hospitalized with suspected variceal hemorrhage were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Half of patients had known varices, 44 (41.5%) of whom had experienced prior variceal hemorrhage. Only 21 (20%) were receiving beta blocker therapy at admission and 41 (48%) at discharge. The majority were not receiving therapy for primary prophylaxis (94%). Specific characteristics associated with beta blocker use could not be identified, although more patients with history of greater than two variceal hemorrhages were receiving beta blocker at admission (73% vs. 41%, P = 0.04)

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that liver disease patients with varices are often not receiving beta blocker therapy to reduce risk of first or subsequent variceal hemorrhage. Opportunity exists to optimize use of this proven prophylactic treatment and bridge an apparent gap in standard of care.

Management of portal hypertension

Treatment of portal hypertension is evolving based on randomised controlled trials. In acute variceal bleeding, prophylactic antibiotics are mandatory, reducing mortality as well as preventing infections. Terlipressin or somatostatin combined with endoscopic ligation or sclerotherapy is the best strategy for control of bleeding but there is no added effect of vasoactive drugs on mortality. Non-selective beta-blockers are the first choice therapy for both secondary and primary prevention; if contraindications or intolerance to beta-blockers are present then band ligation should be used. Novel therapies target the increased intrahepatic resistance caused by microcirculatory intrahepatic deficiency of nitric oxide and contraction of activated intrahepatic stellate cells.

Variceal bleeding: pharmacological therapy

The complications of portal hypertension are totally prevented if hepatic venous pressure gradient is decreased below 12 mm Hg. Besides, if this target is not achieved, a 20% decrease in portal pressure from baseline levels offers an almost total protection from variceal bleeding. This sets the rationale for drug therapy to reduce portal pressure in portal hypertension. Pharmacological therapy to decrease portal pressure includes vasoconstrictors to decrease portal blood inflow, vasodilators to decrease hepatic resistance, and combination therapy. Oral agents, such as beta-adrenergic blockers and organic nitrates, are used for long-term prevention of variceal bleeding, while parenteral agents, such as somatostatin (and analogues) and terlipressin, are used for the treatment of acute variceal bleeding.

The role of vasoactive drugs in the treatment of oesophageal varices

Oesophageal varices are among the most important clinical consequences of portal hypertension. Recent progress in the knowledge of the pathophysiology of portal hypertension has led to the concept that it results from the increase of sinusoidal resistance and the increase in portal blood inflow consequent to splanchnic vasodilatation. Vasoactive drugs have therefore been evaluated, aiming to restore the imbalance between the increased intrahepatic and the decreased splanchnic vascular resistance. A large number of randomised, controlled trials have shown that vasoactive drugs in single or combination therapy, significantly reduce the risk of the first bleeding and rebleeding from oesophageal varices. Vasoactive drugs are also effective and safe in controlling acute variceal bleeding. Because of their high clinical efficacy, safety, ease of use and low cost, vasoactive drugs should be considered the first choice treatment for oesophageal varices.

An evidence-based medicine approach to beta-blocker therapy in patients with cirrhosis

Disease management strategies have gained attention in recent years because of their potential to improve health-related quality of life and prevent excessive resource use. Despite recognition as an important cause of mortality, cirrhosis with portal hypertension has not been widely discussed as a condition amenable to planned care management. Given the effect of variceal hemorrhage as the most immediate life-threatening complication of portal hypertension, a number of high-quality controlled clinical trials have confirmed the efficacy of beta-blocker therapy for primary and secondary prophylaxis. Despite the existence of practice guidelines that incorporate this information, specific clinical scenarios that demand consideration for beta-blocker therapy have not been well described. In this article, a number of hypothetical patient-based cases drawn from the authors' experiences are utilized to illustrate these issues.