Evaluation of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) versus propanolol plus isosorbide mononitrate/nadolol (ISMN) in the prevention of variceal rebleeding: comparison of cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients

Management of liver disease and portal hypertension in common variable immunodeficiency (CVID)

Patients with common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) frequently develop liver disease and associated complications, which represent an increasingly prevalent unmet medical need. The main hepatic manifestation of CVID is nodular regenerative hyperplasia (NRH), resulting in non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH). Liver disease is often underdiagnosed, leading to poor outcomes and decreased survival. The increasing numbers of patients with CVID who are diagnosed late with progressive liver disease underscores the importance of appropriate clinical management and treatment of liver complications. At the same time, specific guidelines for the clinical management of CVID-related liver disease are still lacking. Here, we review the epidemiology of CVID-related liver disease, reveal new insights into NRH and NCPH biology and highlight recently uncovered opportunities for NCPH diagnostics in CVID. Finally, we focus on current management of liver disease, portal hypertension and its complications - the key challenge in patients with CVID. Specifically, we review recent data regarding the role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and liver transplantation in clinical management. The role for anticoagulants and immunosuppressants targeting the pathogenesis of NRH will also be discussed. We propose an updated algorithm for the diagnostic work-up and treatment of NCPH in CVID. Finally, we consider future needs and therapeutic opportunities for CVID-related liver disease.

Efficacy and Safety of Treatments for Patients With Portal Hypertension and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims: Viral hepatitis are one of the main causes of liver cirrhosis. The treatment of portal hypertension caused by liver cirrhosis is difficult and diverse, and the therapeutic effect is unknown. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of treatments for patients with portal hypertension and cirrhosis, including a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), endoscopic therapy, surgical therapy and medications. Methods: Eligible articles were searched for in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases from their inception until June 2020. Using the "gemtc-0.8.4" package in R v.3.6.3 software and the Just Another Gibbs Sampler v.4.2.0 program, network meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model within a Bayesian framework. The odds ratios for all-cause rebleeding, bleeding-related mortality, overall survival (OS), treatment failure and hepatic encephalopathy were determined within the Bayesian framework. Results: Forty randomized controlled trials were identified, including 4,006 adult patients and nine treatment strategies. Our results showed that distal splenorenal shunt and TIPS provided the best control of hemorrhage. Endoscopic variceal ligation with medication resulted in the highest OS rate. Medication alone resulted in poor OS and treatment failure. Conclusions: We performed a systematic comparison of diverse treatments for cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Our meta-analysis indicated that a TIPS and distal splenorenal shunt resulted in lower rates of rebleeding than did other therapies. Furthermore, drugs are more suitable for combination therapy than monotherapy.

Idiopathic Non-Cirrhotic Portal Hypertension and Porto-Sinusoidal Vascular Disease: Review of Current Data

Idiopathic non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (INCPH) is a clinicopathologic disease entity characterized by the presence of clinical signs and symptoms of portal hypertension (PH) in the absence of liver cirrhosis or known risk factors accountable for PH. Multiple hematologic, immune-related, infectious, hereditary and metabolic risk factors have been associated with this disorder. Still, the exact etiopathogenesis is largely unknown. The recently proposed porto-sinusoidal vascular disease (PSVD) scheme broadens the spectrum of the disease by also including patients without clinical PH who are found to have similar histopathologic findings on core liver biopsies. Three histomorphologic lesions have been identified as specific for PSVD to include obliterative portal venopathy, nodular regenerative hyperplasia and incomplete septal cirrhosis/fibrosis. However, these findings are often subtle, under-recognized and subjective with low interobserver agreement among pathologists. Additionally, the natural history of the subclinical forms of the disease remains unexplored. The clinical course is more favorable compared to cirrhosis patients, especially in the absence of clinical PH or liver dysfunction. There are no universally accepted guidelines in regard to diagnosis and treatment of INCPH/PSVD. Hence, this review emphasizes the need to raise awareness of this entity by highlighting its complex pathophysiology and clinicopathologic associations. Lastly, formulation of standardized diagnostic criteria with clinical validation is necessary to avoid misclassifying vascular diseases of the liver and to develop and implement targeted therapeutic strategies.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Causes and Management of Non-cirrhotic Portal Hypertension​

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH) includes a heterogeneous group of conditions. The aim of this paper is to make an overview on the denominations, diagnostical features and management of porto-sinusoidal vascular disease (PSVD) and chronic portal vein thrombosis (PVT) being the main causes of NCPH in the Western world.

RECENT FINDINGS

The management of NCPH consists in the treatment of associated diseases and of portal hypertension (PH). PH due to PSVD or PVT is managed similarly to PH due to cirrhosis. TIPS placement and liver transplantation are considerable options in patients with refractory variceal bleeding/ascites and with progressive liver failure. Anticoagulation is a cornerstone both in the treatment of thrombosis in PSVD and in the prevention of thrombosis recurrence in patients with portal cavernoma. Physicians should be aware of the existence of PSVD and chronic PVT and actively search them in particular settings. To now, the management of portal hypertension-related complications in NCPH is the same of those of cirrhosis. Large cooperative studies on the natural history of NCPH are necessary to better define its management.

Shortcomings in Design and Analysis of Clinical Studies on Bleeding and Thrombosis in Patients with Cirrhosis

Significant gains have been made in our understanding of bleeding and thrombosis in patients with liver disease in recent years, with concurrent exponential growth in the scientific literature published in this realm. Clinical studies of this population are challenging for multiple reasons including some hurdles unique to this population. Cirrhosis patients as a whole, especially those with decompensated cirrhosis, are a high-risk and heterogeneous population prone to serious adverse events. Outcomes of bleeding and thrombosis are relatively rare and lack standardized, validated definitions. Standard practices for clinical care have evolved rapidly and rendered some control data uninformative. We aim to highlight these challenges and make recommendations for best practices for future study design and implementation. Multidisciplinary collaboration with proceduralists, careful study design including attention to validated clinically relevant outcomes, and aggressive pursuit of all funding streams will be key to continued scientific success in this burgeoning field.

Comparison of Therapies for Secondary Prophylaxis of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhosis: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

The decision regarding the optimal secondary prophylactic treatment for esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) in hepatic cirrhosis is controversial. A network meta-analysis was conducted to assess the benefits of various treatments for the secondary prophylaxis of EVB in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

A thorough examination of databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials, was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials up to December 2019. Key primary outcomes included mortality and rebleeding. Within the identified databases, a network meta-analysis was performed. Results were expressed by using a 95% credible interval (CrI) and odds ratios (ORs). The quality of results was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

FINDINGS

Forty-eight trials with 4415 participants with cirrhosis and portal hypertension who had a history of recent variceal bleeding were included. Carvedilol ranked first (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA], 87.4%) in overall survival, and some advantage was suggested; however, the findings were not statistically significant, compared with endoscopic variceal ligation + nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB) (OR, 0.59; CrI, 0.28, 1.3), NSBB + isosorbide mononitrate (OR, 0.67; CrI, 0.33, 1.4), and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) (OR, 0.52; CrI, 0.24, 1.1). NSBB + isosorbide mononitrate (SUCRA, 63.9%) ranked higher than NSBB + endoscopic variceal ligation (SUCRA, 49.6%) in reducing mortality. TIPS (SUCRA, 98.8%) ranked higher than other treatments in reducing rebleeding but did not confer any survival benefit.

IMPLICATIONS

TIPS ranks first in preventing rebleeding of secondary prophylaxis of EVB and carvedilol shows outstanding efficacy in improving survival. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: identifier CRD42019131814.

Idiopathic Portal Hypertension

Idiopathic portal hypertension (IPH) is a rare disorder characterized by clinical portal hypertension in the absence of a recognizable cause such as cirrhosis. Laboratory tests often reveal a preserved liver function with anemia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia due to splenomegaly. Imaging studies reveal signs of portal hypertension, whereas liver stiffness and portal pressure values are usually normal or slightly elevated. Liver biopsy is considered mandatory in order to rule out other causes of portal hypertension, mainly cirrhosis. Liver histology may only show subtle or mild changes, and the definite diagnosis of IPH often requires an expert pathologist and a high-quality specimen. The most frequent clinical presentation is variceal bleeding. Ascites is rarely observed initially, although it may occasionally appear during follow-up. Typical histological findings associated with IPH have been described in patients without portal hypertension, probably representing early stages of the disease. Although the pathophysiology of this entity remains largely unknown, it is frequently associated with underlying immunological disorders, bacterial infections, trace metal poisoning, medications, liver circulatory disturbances, and thrombotic events. The long-term prognosis of patients with IPH, where ascites and the underlying condition are important prognostic factors, is better than in patients with cirrhosis. Treatments that modify the natural history of the disease remain an unmet need, and management of IPH is frequently restricted to control of portal hypertension-related complications.

Noncirrhotic portal hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Noncirrhotic portal hypertension represents a heterogeneous group of liver disorders that is characterized by portal hypertension in the absence of cirrhosis. The purpose of this review is to serve as a guide on how to approach a patient with noncirrhotic portal hypertension with a focus on recent developments.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies pertaining to noncirrhotic portal hypertension have investigated aetiological causes, mechanisms of disease, noninvasive diagnostic modalities, clinical characteristics in the paediatric population and novel treatment targets.

SUMMARY

Noncirrhotic portal hypertension is an underappreciated clinical entity that can be difficult to diagnosis without a healthy suspicion. Diagnosis then relies on a comprehensive understanding of the causes and clinical manifestations of this disease, as well as a careful interpretation of the liver biopsy. Noninvasive approaches to diagnosis may play a significant role moving forward in this disease. Treatment in NCPH remains largely targeted at the individual sequalae of portal hypertension.

Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension

Acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage is a dreaded complication of portal hypertension. Its management has evolved rapidly in recent years. Endoscopic therapy is often employed to arrest bleeding varices as well as to prevent early rebleeding. The combination of vasoconstrictor and endoscopic therapy is superior to vasoconstrictor or endoscopic therapy alone for control of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. After control of acute variceal bleeding, combination of banding ligation and beta-blockers is generally recommended to prevent variceal rebleeding. To prevent the catastrophic event of acute variceal bleeding, endoscopic banding ligation is an important tool in the prophylaxis of first bleeding. Endoscopic obturation with cyanoacrylate is usually utilized to arrest acute gastric variceal hemorrhage as well as to prevent rebleeding. It can be concluded that endoscopic therapies play a pivotal role in management of portal hypertensive bleeding.

Combination therapy versus pharmacotherapy, endoscopic variceal ligation, or the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt alone in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Patients with liver cirrhosis and variceal hemorrhage are at increased risk of rebleeding. We performed a meta-analysis toassess the clinical efficacy of combination therapy (pharmacotherapy and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL)) compared with pharmacotherapy, EVL, or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) alone in the prevention of rebleeding and mortality. A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, up until November 2016, identified relevant randomized controlled trials. Data analysis was performed using Stata 12.0. Regarding overall mortality, combination therapy was as effective as EVL, pharmacotherapy, and TIPS (relative risk (RR) = 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-1.08, RR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.68-1.63, and RR=1.39, 95% CI: 0.92-2.09, respectively). Combination therapy was as effective as EVL and pharmacotherapy alone in reducing blood-related mortality (RR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.15-1.25, and RR=0.42, 95% CI: 0.17-1.06), whereas TIPS was more effective than combination therapy (RR=5.66, 95% CI: 1.02-31.40). This was also the case for rebleeding; combination therapy was more effective than EVL and pharmacotherapy alone (RR=0.57, 95% CI: 0.41-0.79, and RR=0.65, 95% CI: 0.48-0.88), whereas TIPS was more effective than combination therapy (RR=9.42, 95% CI: 2.99-29.65). Finally, regarding rebleeding from esophageal varices, combination therapy was as effective as EVL alone (RR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.33-1.06) and was more effective than pharmacotherapy alone (RR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.40-0.85), although was less effective than TIPS (RR=2.20, 95% CI: 1.22-3.99). TIPS was recommended as the first choice of therapy in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding.

The 35-year odyssey of beta blockers in cirrhosis: any gender difference in sight?

Cirrhosis is the end-stage of chronic liver disease and leads to the development of portal hypertension and its complications such as esophagogastric varices. Non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) are the keystone for the treatment of portal hypertension since the 1980s and, over the decades, several studies have confirmed their beneficial effect on the prevention of variceal (re)bleeding. Pharmacological studies showed effects of gender, sex hormones, oral contraceptives, and pregnancy on cytochrome P450 (CYPs) enzymes that metabolise NSBB, suggesting that gender differences might exist in the effect of NSBB. In this review, we focused on the 35-year knowledge about the use of beta blockers in cirrhosis and potential gender differences. We specifically examined the role of NSBB in pre-primary, primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, compared two commonly used NSBB (i.e., Propranolol and Carvedilol), and present the current controversies about the window of treatment in advanced cirrhosis with a specific focus on gender differences in NSBB effects. NSBB are not currently recommended in pre-primary prophylaxis of varices mainly because of lack of proven efficacy. On the other hand, NSBB are strongly recommended in patient with cirrhosis as primary (as alternative to endoscopic band ligation, EBL) and secondary prophylaxis (in addition to EBL) of variceal bleeding. To date, no studies have focused specifically on the effect of gender on NSBB treatment. Data extrapolated from clinical studies show that gender was neither a risk factor for the development of varices nor associated with a different response to treatment in primary or secondary prophylaxis. According to the available guidelines, no different, gender-based treatment for portal hypertension is recommended.

Rates of recurrent variceal bleeding are low with modern esophageal banding strategies: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Variceal bleeding has a high rate of mortality and recurrence. Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the established standard of care for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the long-term re-bleeding rate of an EBL protocol similar to current society guidelines.

DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care center of all patients with a history of a variceal bleed who underwent an aggressive band ligation protocol.

INTERVENTIONS

At the time of sentinel bleed, all varices, regardless of size, were ligated. EBL was then repeated every 2 weeks until stabilization, and all visible varices were ligated. The interval between banding sessions then increased.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The incidence of re-bleeding was calculated as the time between clinical stabilization after the sentinel event until data censoring, which occurred at time of re-bleed, death, transplant or loss-to-follow up. Gastric variceal bleeding was a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

N = 176 patients were treated with aggressive EBL, and followed for a median of 16 months (range, 3 months - 6.9 years). The 6 month incidence of re-bleeding was 2.3%, the 12 month incidence was 3.4%, and the 2 year incidence was 4.6%. Overall, aggressive EBL was well-tolerated. One patient died during follow-up secondary to a gastric variceal bleed.

CONCLUSIONS

Aggressive EBL yields a low rate of re-bleeding when compared to standard practice. Secondary prophylaxis with aggressive EBL should be a consideration for patients following a sentinel bleeding event.

Drugs plus ligation to prevent rebleeding in cirrhosis: an updated systematic review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Combined therapy with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and β-blockers ± isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) is currently recommended to prevent variceal rebleeding. However, the role of this combined therapy has been challenged by some studies. We performed a systematic review to assess the value of combined therapy with EVL and β-blockers ± ISMN as compared with each treatment alone to prevent rebleeding.

METHODS

Databases, references and meeting abstracts were searched to retrieve randomized trials comparing combined therapy with EVL and β-blockers ± ISMN vs either treatment alone, to prevent variceal rebleeding in cirrhosis. Random-effects model was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We identified five studies comparing EVL alone or combined with drugs, including a total of 476 patients. Combination therapy reduced overall rebleeding [risk ratios (RR) = 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.28-0.69], and showed a trend towards lower mortality (RR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.33-1.03), without increasing complications. We identified four trials comparing drugs alone or associated with EVL, including 409 patients. All used β-blockers plus ISMN. Variceal rebleeding decreased with combined therapy (P < 0.01) but rebleeding from oesophageal ulcers increased (P = 0.01). Overall, there was a trend towards lower rebleeding (RR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.58-1.00) without effect on mortality (RR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.90-1.70).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of drug therapy to EVL improves the efficacy of EVL alone. However, the addition of EVL to β-blockers and ISMN achieves a non-significant decrease of rebleeding with no effect on mortality. Although combination therapy with EVL plus β-blockers ± ISMN is adequate to prevent rebleeding, β-blockers + ISMN alone may be a valid alternative.

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.

The current clinical aspects of idiopathic portal hypertension

IDIOPATHIC PORTAL HYPERTENSION (IPH) COMPRISES DISORDERS DEVELOPING INCREASED PORTAL PRESSURE IN THE ABSENCE OF CIRRHOSIS: the clear mechanisms to explain this disease are still not well recognized. IPH usually suggests a benign prognosis, but sometimes is complicated with severe hemorrhage due to ruptured esophageal varices, or massive splenomegaly. Conventional treatments for those complications for patients with cirrhosis usually works when diverted to patients with IPH, although some of those patients might require liver transplantation if the treatment fails. However, there are few consistent treatment strategies for IPH itself, its complications or the indications for liver transplantation. In this mini review, we summarize the clinical manifestations and several potential theories to explain the etiology, as well as the current treatment options for IPH.

Psychometric hepatic encephalopathy score for the detection of minimal hepatic encephalopathy in Korean patients with liver cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although the Psychometric Hepatic Encephalopathy Score (PHES) for the diagnosis of minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) has been validated in several countries, further validation is required for its use in different populations. The aims of this study were thus to standardize the PHES in a healthy Korean population and evaluate the prevalence of MHE among Korean patients with liver cirrhosis.

METHODS

Two-hundred healthy subjects without evidence of liver disease and 160 patients with liver cirrhosis without overt HE were included. Blood sampling for routine laboratory tests and determination of venous ammonia concentration was performed on the day of PHES neuropsychological testing.

RESULTS

The age and education years of the control group were 41 ± 13 years and 13 ± 3 years, respectively; 100 of the subjects (50.0%) were men. The PHES for the control group was -0.31 ± 2.06 and the normal range was thus set at > -5 points. The age and education years of the liver cirrhosis group were 55 ± 8 and 11 ± 4 years, respectively; 102 of those in this group (63.8%) were men. Of the liver cirrhosis patients, 129 (80.6%), 21 (13.1%), and 10 (6.3%) had Child-Pugh grades A, B, and C, respectively. The PHES of the liver cirrhosis group was -2.94 ± 3.39. MHE was diagnosed in 41 patients (25.6%), of which 26 (20.2%), nine (42.9%), and six (60.0%) had Child-Pugh grades A, B, and C, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The PHES was useful for detecting patients with MHE. A significant proportion of Korean patients with liver cirrhosis suffer from MHE.

Endoscopic band ligation versus pharmacological therapy for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a meta-analysis of published, full-length, randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) versus pharmacological therapy for the primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Eighteen randomized clinical trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were further pooled into a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Among 1023 patients in 12 trials comparing EBL with beta-blockers for primary prevention, there was no significant difference in gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.79 [95% CI 0.61 to 1.02]), all-cause deaths (RR 1.06 [95% CI 0.86 to 1.30]) or bleeding-related deaths (RR 0.66 [95% CI 0.38 to 1.16]). There was a reduced trend toward significance in variceal bleeding with EBL compared with betablockers (RR 0.72 [95% CI 0.54 to 0.96]). However, variceal bleeding was not significantly different between the two groups in high-quality trials (RR 0.84 [95% CI 0.60 to 1.17]). Among 687 patients from six trials comparing EBL with beta-blockers plus isosorbide mononitrate for secondary prevention, there was no effect on either gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.95 [95% CI 0.65 to 1.40]) or variceal bleeding (RR 0.89 [95% CI 0.53 to 1.49]). The risk for all-cause deaths in the EBL group was significantly higher than in the medical group (RR 1.25 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.55]); however, the rate of bleeding related deaths was unaffected (RR 1.16 [95% CI 0.68 to 1.97]).

CONCLUSIONS

Both EBL and beta-blockers may be considered first-line treatments to prevent first variceal bleeding, whereas betablockers plus isosorbide mononitrate may be the best choice for the prevention of rebleeding.

Portale Hypertension

Während die Pathologie, die zur portalen Hypertension führt, im prähepatischen, hepatischen und posthepatischen venösen Gefäßbett liegen kann, machen die intrahepatischen Erkrankungen mit Abstand den Großteil aus. In unseren Breitengraden ist es die durch Alkoholabusus bedingte ethyltoxische Leberzirrhose, weltweit die durch Infektionen (HCV, HBV) bedingten Zirrhosen. Die chronische Hepatitis C mit ihren Komplikationen (Leberzellversagen, portale Hypertension und hepatozelluläres Karzinom) wird in den kommenden Jahren trotz moderner Therapieverfahren noch an Bedeutung gewinnen.

Variceal bleeding: consensus meeting report from the Brazilian Society of Hepatology

In the last decades, several improvements in the management of variceal bleeding have resulted in a significant decrease in morbidity and mortality of patients with cirrhosis and bleeding varices. Progress in the multidisciplinary approach to these patients has led to a better management of this disease by critical care physicians, hepatologists, gastroenterologists, endoscopists, radiologists and surgeons. In this respect, the Brazilian Society of Hepatology has, recently, sponsored a consensus meeting in order to draw evidence-based recommendations on the management of these difficult-to-treat subjects. An organizing committee comprised of four people was elected by the Governing Board and was responsible to invite 27 researchers from distinct regions of the country to make a systematic review of the subject and to present topics related to variceal bleeding, including prevention, diagnosis, management and treatment, according to evidence-based medicine. After the meeting, all participants met together for discussion of the topics and the elaboration of the aforementioned recommendations. The organizing committee was responsible for writing the final document. The meeting was held at Salvador, May 6th, 2009 and the present manuscript is the summary of the systematic review that was presented during the meeting, organized in topics, followed by the recommendations of the Brazilian Society of Hepatology.

Equal efficacy of endoscopic variceal ligation and propranolol in preventing variceal bleeding in patients with noncirrhotic portal hypertension

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Variceal bleeding increases morbidity and mortality among patients with noncirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH). Blockers of β-adrenergic receptor signaling and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) have been used to prevent recurrence of bleeding, based on data from cirrhotic patients. We compared the efficacy and safety of the β-blocker propranolol with that of EVL in preventing the recurrence of variceal bleeding in patients with NCPH.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with NCPH with a history of variceal bleeding in the past 6 weeks were assigned randomly to groups treated every 3 weeks with EVL (n = 51) or propranolol (until they had a resting heart rate of 55 beats per minute or to a maximum of 320 mg/day; n = 50). Primary end points were recurrence of variceal bleeding or death. Secondary end points were complications of EVL in patients given EVL, variceal eradication after EVL, variceal recurrence after EVL, or a decrease in variceal grade in patients given propranolol.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up period of 23 months, rates of recurrence of bleeding were similar between the groups (EVL, 23.5%; propranolol, 18%; P = .625). The actuarial probability of remaining free of bleeding recurrence was similar between the groups. No deaths occurred in either group. Of the patients given propranolol, 47% had a decrease in the grade of varices and none experienced bleeding. Adverse events were minor and comparable between groups (EVL, 12%; propranolol, 18%; P = .635).

CONCLUSIONS

EVL was not more effective than the β-blocker propranolol for the secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with NCPH.

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.

A specialized, nurse-run titration clinic: a feasible option for optimizing beta-blockade in non-clinical trial patients

OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials of variceal bleeding prophylaxis demonstrate beta-blocker (BB) withdrawal rates of about 15%. We aimed to evaluate the dosing and tolerance of BBs achievable in a specialized, nurse-run BB titration clinic with non-trial participants.

METHODS

We analyzed prospectively collected data from 154 patients seen at the clinic between 2004 and 2009. BBs were titrated to patient tolerance. The therapeutic target (TT) was defined as a heart rate between 50 and 60 beats per minute (bpm) on the last clinic visit and/or maximum doses of BBs (propranolol 320 mg, nadolol 160 mg).

RESULTS

Eight of 154 patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 146. Fifty-five percent were male (mean age, 55; mean model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, 9), with 74% Child-Pugh class A. Median end-of-study doses were 120 mg propranolol and 60 mg nadolol. Seventy-nine percent of patients reached the TT before they were discharged from the clinic. Side effects were experienced by 72% of patients. Thirty-four percent had no need for dose reduction; 17% required transient dose reduction, 16% permanent dose reduction, and 5% BB discontinuation. Among patients requiring permanent dose reduction or discontinuation, the top reasons were fatigue and orthostatic symptoms. Independent predictors of achieving higher doses of BB were the absence of side effects, younger age, and diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that a specialized BB titration clinic attains low withdrawal rates and higher doses, similar to those in clinical trials. Nurse-led clinics can contribute to successful titration of these important medications.

The role of endoscopy in secondary prophylaxis of esophageal varices

The rate of rebleeding from esophageal varices remains appreciably high after cessation of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Many measures have been developed to prevent the occurrence of rebleeding. Endoscopic therapy plays a central role in the prevention of variceal bleeding. In the 1980s sclerotherapy played a pivotal role in the prevention of variceal rebleeding, but now yields to endoscopic variceal ligation. Compared with sclerotherapy, a lower incidence of complications and rebleeding is associated with banding ligation. On the other hand, beta-blockers are also noted to be able to reduce portal pressure, leading to the reduction of variceal rebleeding. The reduction of variceal rebleeding with beta-blockers plus nitrates is as effective as banding ligation. The combination of beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation has proven to be more efficacious than banding ligation alone in the reduction of variceal rebleeding and is the treatment of choice for patients with failure in either medical or endoscopic therapy. Patients with repeated rebleeding despite endoscopic therapies may require transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt or shunt operation as a rescue therapy.

Pharmacotherapy plus endoscopic intervention is more effective than pharmacotherapy or endoscopy alone in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Previous clinical trials on the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding yielded mixed results regarding the efficacy of endoscopic procedures compared with pharmacotherapy only.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of endoscopic procedures with that of pharmacotherapy in the prevention of mortality and rebleeding.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized, controlled trials of the efficacy of pharmacotherapy and endoscopic therapy. A meta-analysis was performed by using the Comprehensive MetaAnalysis software package. A 2-sided alpha error <.05 was considered statistically significant (P < .05).

PATIENTS

Twenty-five clinical trials with a total of 2159 patients were eligible for meta-analysis.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed for all-cause mortality, mortality from rebleeding, all-cause rebleeding, and rebleeding caused by varices.

RESULTS

Pharmacotherapy was as effective as endoscopic procedures in preventing rebleeding (RR 1.067; 95% CI, 0.865-1.316; P = .546), variceal rebleeding (RR 1.143; 95% CI, 0.791-1.651; P = .476), all-cause mortality (RR 0.997; 95% CI, 0.827-1.202, P = .978), and mortality from rebleeding (RR 1.171; 95% CI, 0.816-1.679; P = .39). Pharmacotherapy combined with endoscopic procedures did not reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.787; 95% CI, 0.587-1.054; P = .108) or mortality caused by rebleeding (RR 0.786; 95% CI, 0.445-1.387; P = .405) compared with endoscopic procedures. However, combination therapy (endoscopic procedure plus pharmacotherapy) significantly reduced the incidence of all rebleeding (RR 0.623; 95% CI, 0.523-0.741; P < .001) and variceal rebleeding (RR 0.601; 95% CI, 0.440-0.820; P < .001).

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity of patient population and different treatment protocols may have affected our meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacotherapy may be as effective as endoscopic therapy in reducing rebleeding rates and all-cause mortality. Pharmacotherapy plus endoscopic intervention is more effective than endoscopic intervention alone.

Systematic review: secondary prevention with band ligation, pharmacotherapy or combination therapy after bleeding from oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Variable methods are available for secondary prevention after oesophageal variceal bleeding (EVB).

AIM

To compare band ligation (BL), pharmacotherapy (PT) and BL+PT for EVB secondary prevention.

METHODS

A systematic search of databases, references and meeting abstracts was conducted for randomized trials of BL, PT or BL+PT. The outcomes were mortality, rebleeding and adverse events. A random-effects model was used for meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Twelve trials were included (6 BL vs. PT, 4 BL+PT vs. BL, 2 BL+PT vs. PT). All trials used beta-blockers +/- isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) as PT. Mortality was not significantly different among trials. Rebleeding was not significantly different for BL vs. PT (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73-1.37). BL reduced rebleeding compared with PT for trials with mean beta-blocker dose <80 mg/day (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.91). There were nonsignificant differences in rebleeding for BL+PT vs. BL (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31-1.08) and BL+PT vs. PT (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56-1.03). There was no difference in adverse events between BL vs. PT, but was higher with BL+PT vs. BL.

CONCLUSION

Band ligation and PT alone are comparable for secondary prevention of rebleeding after EVB. Further trials with adequate PT dosing are required to determine the efficacy of combination BL+PT therapy.

Addition of propranolol and isosorbide mononitrate to endoscopic variceal ligation does not reduce variceal rebleeding incidence

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and propranolol are standard secondary prophylaxis therapies for variceal bleeding. Addition of isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) to propranolol improves its hemodynamic efficacy; we investigated whether a combination of EVL and propranolol/ISMN was more effective than EVL alone for secondary prophylaxis.

METHODS

Patients with a prior variceal bleed were randomly assigned to groups given a combination (n = 88) of EVL, propranolol (dose titrated to reduce heart rate to 55 beats per minute), and ISMN (40 mg/day) or EVL alone (n = 89). Primary end points were rebleeding or death; secondary end points were new complications of portal hypertension or serious adverse effects.

RESULTS

The actuarial probabilities of rebleeding 2 years after therapy were 27% in the combination group and 31% in the EVL alone group (P = .822). Two patients in the combination group and 3 patients in the EVL alone group died during the study period (P = .682); no deaths were caused by variceal hemorrhage. In cirrhotic patients, the actuarial probabilities of rebleeding were 24% and 30%, respectively (P = .720). Secondary end points were comparable between groups. In multivariate analyses, presence of ascites (P = .003), serum albumin < 3.3 g/dL (P = .008), and hepatic venous pressure gradients > or = 18 mm Hg (P = .009) were independent risk factors for variceal rebleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

EVL alone is sufficient to prevent variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients with history of variceal bleeding. Addition of propranolol and ISMN to EVL does not reduce the incidence of variceal rebleeding but increases severe adverse effects. Risk factors for rebleeding include ascites, low serum albumin, and high hepatic venous pressure gradients.

Clinical features and treatment outcomes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis

With recent progress in treatment modalities, mortality from upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding has decreased appreciably. The aim of this study was to establish how UGI bleeds are managed in Korean patients with cirrhosis and to evaluate treatment outcomes. A total of 479 episodes of acute UGI bleeding in 464 patients with cirrhosis were included during a six-month period at nine tertiary medical centers. Treatment outcomes were assessed by failure to control bleeding, rebleeding and mortality. The source of bleeding was esophagogastric varices in 77.7% of patients, nonvariceal lesions in 15.9%, and undefined in 6.5%. For control of bleeding, endoscopic and pharmacologic treatments were used in 74.7% and 81.9% of patients, respectively. Variceal ligation was a major technique for endoscopic treatment (90%), and terlipressin and somatostatin were the main pharmacologic agents used (96.4%). Initial hemostasis was achieved in 86.8% of cases, but rebleeding occurred in 3.8% and 16.8% of cases within five days and six weeks of hemorrhage, respectively. Five-day and six-week mortality were 11.3% and 25.9%, respectively. Survival of patients with variceal bleeding seems to be remarkably improved than previous reports, which may suggest the advances in hemostatic methods for control of variceal hemorrhage.

Results of a new method to stop acute bleeding from esophageal varices: implantation of a self-expanding stent

BACKGROUND

Acute bleeding from nontreated esophageal varices is associated with a mortality rate of 30% to 50%. Various pharmacologic and interventional methods to stop acute bleeding are available. However, for 10% to 20% of patients, therapy fails to stop the bleeding. This study aimed to assess the SX-ELLA Stent Danis Set (which has a self-expanding metal stent) instead of a balloon probe for compression of esophageal varices.

METHODS

Using a multidisciplinary approach, a self-expanding stent was placed in 39 patients between January 2003 and August 2007. For 34 of these patients with ongoing bleeding from esophageal varices, stent implantation was performed with the SX-ELLA Stent Danis Set, and the patients were included in this study. For all these patients, common methods failed to stop hemorrhage. With the SX-ELLA Stent Danis Set, the stent was implanted with a positioning balloon that enabled delivery without X-ray control. After implantation of the stent, its position was controlled by endoscopy and computed tomography (CT) scan.

RESULTS

For all 34 patients, the implantation of the esophageal stent succeeded in stopping ongoing bleeding. No stent-related complications occurred during or after stent implantation. No bleeding recurrence was observed during the stent implantation (median time, 5 days; range 1-14 days). For all the patients, the stent could be extracted by endoscopy without any complications using an extractor. Nine patients died of hepatic failure within 30 days after the procedure. No rebleeding occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a self-expanding stent to stop acute bleeding from esophageal varices is a new therapeutic method. The authors' initial experience, which involved no method-related mortality or complications, is encouraging. More data are necessary to confirm their results.

Diagnosis and management of cirrhosis in coinfected patients

HIV coinfection is associated with faster progression of liver disease resulting from hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Thus, liver complications have become a major cause of illness and death in coinfected patients. Controlling HIV through highly active antiretroviral therapy may slow disease progression to nearly the rate of HIV-negative persons. Several antiretroviral regimens have been associated with drug-induced liver injury, however, which is more common in patients coinfected with hepatitis B or C. After development of cirrhosis and decompensation, survival is shorter in coinfected patients. Diagnosis and management of cirrhosis should be the same for coinfected and monoinfected HBV/HCV patients. The main complications of cirrhosis are ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, bleeding esophageal varices, hepatic encephalopathy, the hepatorenal syndrome, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver transplantation is feasible in patients with HIV infection, and early evaluation for this option is crucial because of the accelerated course of complications in HIV coinfection.

Clinical characteristics of idiopathic portal hypertension

Idiopathic portal hypertension is one of the interesting causes of portal hypertension. Even in very developed medical centers, this disorder is still one of the most important misdiagnoses of clinical practice. To inexperienced physicians, presenting esophageal varices and upper gastrointestinal bleeding usually prompt an unfortunate diagnosis of cirrhosis. A heterogenous clinical presentation and progression of this disorder should be recognized by physicians, and management should be directed towards some specific problems confined to this disorder. Although a genetic basis and other factors are implicated in its pathogenesis, exact underlying mechanism(s) is (are) unknown. In this review, we discuss the heterogeneity of idiopathic portal hypertension, its etiopathogenesis, clinical presentation and management issues. With the expectation of an excellent prognosis, a practicing gastroenterologist should be aware that “not all varices mean cirrhosis”.

Evolution of endoscopic therapy for esophageal varices

Endoscopic treatment for bleeding esophageal varices was first described 65 years ago, but the technique was not widely adopted until the 1970s. Rapid progress since then has resulted in new, more effective forms of endoscopic treatment. Currently, endoscopic therapy is the primary treatment for patients with bleeding esophageal varices at most centers. This review traces the evolution of endoscopic treatment, summarizes current outcomes data, and speculates on future development.