Carvedilol versus propranolol effect on hepatic venous pressure gradient at 1 month in patients with index variceal bleed: RCT

Is carvedilol superior to propranolol in patients with cirrhosis with portal hypertension: a systematic and meta-analysis

Background

Carvedilol has shown greater potency than propranolol as a β-blocker in managing cardiac conditions. However, its efficacy in reducing portal hypertension (PHTN) in patients with cirrhosis remains unclear. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of carvedilol compared with propranolol in managing PHTN.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing carvedilol and propranolol were included. Primary outcomes were changes in hepatic venous pressure gradient, wedge hepatic venous pressure and free hepatic venous pressure. Secondary outcomes included heart rate, cardiac output and mean arterial pressure. Tertiary outcomes assessed adverse event incidences.

Results

Six randomized controlled trials involving 336 patients (171 carvedilol, 165 propranolol) were analysed. Carvedilol significantly reduced hepatic venous pressure gradient (mean difference (MD): 2.22 (95% CI 1.82-2.62); p<0.00001) and wedge hepatic venous pressure (MD: 2.38 (95% CI 1.92-2.84); p<0.00001). Propranolol significantly reduced cardiac output (MD: -0.60 (95% CI -0.74 to -0.45); p<0.00001). Mean arterial pressure was significantly lower in the carvedilol group (MD: 1.79 (95% CI 0.38-3.20); p=0.01). Adverse events, such as orthostatic hypotension and increased diuretic use, were more frequent in the carvedilol group but were manageable.

Conclusion

Carvedilol demonstrates superior efficacy in reducing PHTN compared with propranolol, with a slightly higher but tolerable adverse event profile. It may be considered the first-line treatment for PHTN. Further research is needed to validate long-term benefits and safety.

Portal hypertension: recommendations for diagnosis and treatment. Consensus document sponsored by the Spanish Association for the Study of the Liver (AEEH) and the Biomedical Research Network Centre for Liver and Digestive Diseases (CIBERehd)

Portal hypertension is a hemodynamic abnormality that complicates the course of cirrhosis, as well as other diseases that affect the portal venous circulation. The development of portal hypertension compromises prognosis, especially when it rises above a certain threshold known as clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). In the consensus conference on Portal Hypertension promoted by the Spanish Association for the Study of the Liver and the Hepatic and Digestive diseases area of the Biomedical Research Networking Center (CIBERehd), different aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of portal hypertension caused by cirrhosis or other diseases were discussed. The outcome of this discussion was a set of recommendations that achieved varying degrees of consensus among panelists and are reflected in this consensus document. The six areas under discussion were: the relevance of CSPH and the non-invasive methods used for its diagnosis and that of cirrhosis, the prevention of the first episode of decompensation and its recurrence, the treatment of acute variceal bleeding and other complications of portal hypertension, the indications for the use of TIPS, and finally, the diagnosis and treatment of liver vascular diseases.

Portal hypertension: recommendations for diagnosis and treatment. Consensus document sponsored by the Spanish Association for the Study of the Liver (AEEH) and the Biomedical Research Network Center for Liver and Digestive Diseases (CIBERehd)

Portal hypertension is a hemodynamic abnormality that complicates the course of cirrhosis, as well as other diseases that affect the portal venous circulation. The development of portal hypertension compromises prognosis, especially when it rises above a certain threshold known as clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). In the consensus conference on Portal Hypertension promoted by the Spanish Association for the Study of the Liver and the Hepatic and Digestive diseases area of the Biomedical Research Networking Center (CIBERehd), different aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of portal hypertension caused by cirrhosis or other diseases were discussed. The outcome of this discussion was a set of recommendations that achieved varying degrees of consensus among panelists and are reflected in this consensus document. The six areas under discussion were: the relevance of clinically significant portal hypertension and the non-invasive methods used for its diagnosis and that of cirrhosis, the prevention of the first episode of decompensation and its recurrence, the treatment of acute variceal bleeding and other complications of portal hypertension, the indications for the use of TIPS, and finally, the diagnosis and treatment of liver vascular diseases.

Carvedilol vs. propranolol for the prevention of decompensation and mortality in patients with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Data on the effectiveness of classical non-selective beta-blockers (cNSBBs, i.e., propranolol and nadolol) vs. carvedilol in patients with cirrhosis are scarce. In the present study, we aimed to compare their potential for preventing decompensation and mortality in patients with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective study including patients with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis with clinically significant portal hypertension, undergoing measurement of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) to assess acute hemodynamic response to intravenous propranolol (i.e., HVPG decrease ≥10% from baseline value) prior to primary prophylaxis for variceal bleeding. Outcomes were adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting in a competitive risk framework.

RESULTS

A total of 540 patients were included, 256 with compensated (cNSBBs n = 111; carvedilol n = 145) and 284 with decompensated (cNSBBs n = 134; carvedilol n = 150) cirrhosis. Median follow-up was 36.3 (IQR 16.9-61.0) and 30.7 (IQR 13.1-52.2) months, respectively. After covariate balancing, compared to cNSBBs, carvedilol significantly reduced the risk of a first decompensation in compensated patients (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.61; 95% CI 0.41-0.92; p = 0.019) and a combined endpoint of further decompensation/death in decompensated patients (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.57; 95% CI 0.42-0.77; p <0.0001). A second HVPG was conducted on 176 (68.8%, compensated) and 177 (62.3%, decompensated) patients. Acute non-responders, both compensated (11.1% vs. 29.4%; p = 0.422) and decompensated (16.0% vs. 43.6%: p = 0.0247) patients, showed a higher likelihood of achieving a chronic hemodynamic response with carvedilol. The safety profile of each type of NSBB was comparable in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data endorse the current recommendation favoring the use of carvedilol for the prevention of a first decompensation of cirrhosis and suggest extending the recommendation to patients with decompensated cirrhosis without recurrent or refractory ascites.

IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS

This study addresses a gap in the comparative effectiveness of classical non-selective beta-blockers (e.g., propranolol and nadolol) vs. carvedilol in managing cirrhosis in both compensated and decompensated stages. Our results support the preferential use of carvedilol in both settings due to its superior efficacy in reducing first and further decompensation. However, owing to the retrospective nature of the study and inherent selection biases, we advise against broadly applying these findings to patients with decompensated cirrhosis who exhibit signs of circulatory dysfunction or recurrent/refractory ascites.

Comparison of Carvedilol and Propranolol in Reducing the Portal Vein Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The portal vein pressure higher than 10 mm Hg in patients with hepatic cirrhosis is more likely to have serious complications and poor prognosis. Nonselective receptor blockers (NSBBs) can reduce the portal vein pressure; however, the efficacy and safety of different NSBBs in reducing portal vein pressure were unconsistent. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of carvedilol versus propranolol in reducing portal vein pressure in this study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We assessed Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through PubMed, Web of science, Embase, and Cochrane library up to January 2024. Data from eligible studies were pooled in fixed-effect or random-effect meta-analysis models, using RevMan software. Two researchers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed the study quality independently according to the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were the reduction of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), the hemodynamic response rate, and the incidence of adverse events. Secondary outcomes were mean artery pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR).

RESULTS

A total of 7 RCTs, including 351 patients, were included in our meta-analysis. The results indicated that the magnitude of reduction in HVPG was greater in carvedilol compared with propranolol (MD: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.54; I2=0%, P<0.00001) in short-term follow-up. Carvedilol's hemodynamic response rate was higher than that of propranolol (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.72; I2=0%, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis indicated that compared with propranolol, carvedilol was better in lowering portal hypertensive and had higher response rate in patients with hepatic cirrhosis. There was no obvious difference in safety between the 2 medications.

Managing cirrhosis with limited resources: perspectives from sub-Saharan Africa

Cirrhosis represents the end stage of chronic liver disease. Sub-Saharan Africa, a resource-constrained region, has a high burden of chronic liver disease, with causes including chronic viral hepatitis, excessive alcohol use, and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), the risk of which is burgeoning. The development of liver cirrhosis predicts for morbidity and mortality, driven by both liver dysfunction and the consequences of portal hypertension. Compensated cirrhosis portends a better prognosis than decompensated cirrhosis, highlighting the need for the early diagnosis of cirrhosis and its causes. With resource challenges, the diagnosis and management of cirrhosis is demanding, but less costly and less invasive interventions with substantial benefits, ranging from simple blood tests to transient elastography, are feasible in such settings. Simple interventions are also available to manage the complex manifestations of decompensation, such as β blockers in variceal bleeding prophylaxis, salt restriction and appropriate diuretic use in ascites, and lactulose and generic rifaximin in hepatic encephalopathy. Ultimately, managing the underlying causative factors of liver disease is key in improving prognosis. Management demands expanded policy interventions to increase screening and treatment for hepatitis B and C and reduce alcohol use and the metabolic factors driving MASLD. Furthermore, the skills needed for more specialised interventions, such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedures and even liver transplantation, warrant planning, increased capacity, and support for regional centres of excellence. Such centres are already being developed in sub-Saharan Africa, demonstrating what can be achieved with dedicated initiatives and individuals.

Heterogeneity of treatment response to beta-blockers in the treatment of portal hypertension: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that a relevant proportion of patients do not respond to nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB)s, which raises questions regarding the need for individualized therapy. The existence of potential heterogeneity in the treatment response can be assessed using the variability ratio (VR) of the outcome measurement (in this case, HVPG) between the treated and placebo groups. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the potential heterogeneity in the portal pressure response to NSBBs.

METHODS

After a systematic search, we quantified the heterogeneity of treatment response with the VR between the treatment and control groups, with VR > 1 indicating potential heterogeneity. We used a similar approach to compare carvedilol with propranolol and statins with placebo.

RESULTS

We identified 18 studies that included 965 patients. A comparison between beta-blockers and placebo showed a pooled VR of 0.99 (95% CI:0.87-1.14), which suggests a homogeneous HVPG response to NSBB at the individual patient level (ie, no evidence to support that some patients responded to beta-blockers and others did not). For the comparison between carvedilol and propranolol, pooled VR was 0.97 (95% CI 0.82-1.14), suggesting that carvedilol achieves a greater average response (rather than an increase in the proportion of responders). There was no evidence of a heterogeneous response to statins.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis did not support the existence of a heterogeneous patient-by-patient response to NSBBs in cirrhosis. These findings challenge the concept of personalized therapy based on portal pressure response and indicate that routine portal pressure measurement may not be necessary to guide NSBB therapy.

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

Background and Aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

The Efficacy of Carvedilol in Comparison to Propranolol in Reducing the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient and Decreasing the Risk of Variceal Bleeding in Adult Cirrhotic Patients: A Systematic Review

The most common cause of portal hypertension is liver cirrhosis. Portal hypertension causes many complications in cirrhotic patients; a significant complication is the formation of varices and the subsequent life-threatening variceal bleeding due to elevated portal venous pressures. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is the gold standard for measuring portal hypertension and guides management. Pharmacological treatments lower the HVPG, preventing the progression of varices and subsequent variceal bleeding. The pharmacological treatments frequently used in primary and secondary prophylaxis of a variceal bleed are nonselective beta (β)-adrenergic blockers. Propranolol was the first nonselective β-adrenergic blocker used for lowering HVPG and has been well studied. However, in the past decade, clinical trials have shown that carvedilol has been more effective. This study aims to establish whether carvedilol is more effective than propranolol in reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient and decreasing the risk of variceal bleeding in adult cirrhotic patients. A systematic review has been conducted to gather relevant clinical trials comparing drugs and their effects on HVPG. Four databases: PubMed (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE)), Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect, were analyzed, and records from January 1, 1999, to January 1, 2023, were chosen. There were a total of 1,235 potentially eligible records across the four databases. Using the eligibility criteria for this systematic review, seven studies of 533 patients were included. Across all seven clinical trials, it was found that carvedilol reduced HVPG more than propranolol and decreased the risk of variceal bleeding in adult cirrhotic patients.

Pathophysiology and management of liver cirrhosis: from portal hypertension to acute-on-chronic liver failure

Cirrhosis transcends various progressive stages from compensation to decompensation driven by the severity of portal hypertension. The downstream effect of increasing portal hypertension severity leads to various pathophysiological pathways, which result in the cardinal complications of cirrhosis, including ascites, variceal hemorrhage, and hepatic encephalopathy. Additionally, the severity of portal hypertension is the central driver for further advanced complications of hyperdynamic circulation, hepatorenal syndrome, and cirrhotic cardiomyopathy. The management of these individual complications has specific nuances which have undergone significant developments. In contrast to the classical natural history of cirrhosis and its complications which follows an insidious trajectory, acute-on-chronic failure (ACLF) leads to a rapidly downhill course with high short-term mortality unless intervened at the early stages. The management of ACLF involves specific interventions, which have quickly evolved in recent years. In this review, we focus on complications of portal hypertension and delve into an approach toward ACLF.

Successful Percutaneous Transhepatic Obliteration Plus Sengstaken-Blakemore Tube Combination Therapy for Recurrent Gastroesophageal Variceal Bleeding: A Case Report

We treated a case of gastroesophageal varices due to decompensated liver cirrhosis associated with Wilson's disease. The varicose veins penetrated the paraesophageal vein. We performed endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) on the perforating vein and endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) distally. However, 5 days after treatment, the patient vomited blood. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy showed bleeding from the ulcer after EVL at the perforating vein. We performed EVL and stopped the bleeding. However, the next day, she vomited blood again and developed hemorrhagic shock. We were able to achieve hemostasis and save the patient's life with combination therapy consisting of percutaneous transhepatic obliteration and Sengstaken-Blakemore tube placement.

Assessing the Risk of Further Decompensation and Survival in Patients With Cirrhosis With Variceal Bleeding as Their First Decompensation Event

INTRODUCTION

Limited data exist on long-term outcomes of patients with compensated cirrhosis presenting with acute variceal bleeding (AVB) as an index and lone decompensating event. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of further decompensation, survival, and risk factors of mortality in these patients.

METHODS

Patients with otherwise compensated cirrhosis presenting with AVB as their index decompensating event (n = 463) were analyzed in this single-center retrospective study. The incidence of individual decompensation events and survival was estimated using competing risk analysis. Risk factors for poor outcomes were identified.

RESULTS

The mean age was 47.4 (13.2) years, with most patients (86.5%) being males. Alcohol-related liver disease (42.3%) and viral cirrhosis (22.4%) were the main etiologies with a median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 14 (11-15) at baseline. Over a median follow-up of 42 (24-62) months, 292 patients experienced further decompensations: ascites (n = 283; 96.9%), rebleeding (n = 157; 53.8%), and hepatic encephalopathy (n = 71; 24.3%). Most events occurred with similar frequency across different etiologies, except acute-on-chronic liver failure, which was more common in nonviral cirrhosis (Gray test, P = 0.042). Patients with viral and nonviral cirrhosis had similar survival (5-year survival: 91% and 80.1%, respectively; P = 0.062). Patients with early further decompensations (onset <6 weeks of index AVB event) (n = 40) had a higher mortality (52.5% vs 20.2% for late decompensations; P < 0.001). Active alcohol consumption (hazard ratio [HR]: 9 [5.31-15.3], P < 0.001), high white blood cell count at presentation (HR: 2.5 [1.4-4.4], P = 0.001), and early decompensation (HR: 6.2 [3.6-10.6], P < 0.001) predicted poor survival.

DISCUSSION

Despite a high incidence of further decompensation, 5-year survival of patients at this stage of cirrhosis is more than 80% across all etiologies in the absence of early further decompensation and active alcohol consumption.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Management of Portal Hypertension

Portal hypertension is the cause of the clinical complications associated with cirrhosis. The primary complications of portal hypertension are ascites, acute variceal bleed, and hepatic encephalopathy. Hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement remains the gold standard test for diagnosing cirrhosis-related portal hypertension. Hepatic venous pressure gradient more than 10 mmHg is associated with an increased risk of complications and is termed clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). Clinical, laboratory, and imaging methods can also aid in diagnosing CSPH non-invasively. Recently, deep learning methods have been demonstrated to diagnose CSPH effectively. The management of portal hypertension is always individualized and is dependent on the etiology, the availability of therapies, and the degree of portal hypertension complications. In this review, we discuss the diagnosis and management of cirrhosis-related portal hypertension in detail. Also, we highlight the history of portal hypertension and future research areas in portal hypertension.

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.

Outcome of Conservative Therapy in Coronavirus disease-2019 Patients Presenting With Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

There is a paucity of data on the management of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in patients with Coronavirus disease -2019 (COVID-19) amid concerns about the risk of transmission during endoscopic procedures. We aimed to study the outcomes of conservative treatment for GI bleeding in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, 24 of 1342 (1.8%) patients with COVID-19, presenting with GI bleeding from 22nd April to 22nd July 2020, were included.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 45.8 ± 12.7 years; 17 (70.8%) were males; upper GI (UGI) bleeding: lower GI (LGI) 23:1. Twenty-two (91.6%) patients had evidence of cirrhosis- 21 presented with UGI bleeding while one had bleeding from hemorrhoids. Two patients without cirrhosis were presumed to have non-variceal bleeding. The medical therapy for UGI bleeding included vasoconstrictors-somatostatin in 17 (73.9%) and terlipressin in 4 (17.4%) patients. All patients with UGI bleeding received proton pump inhibitors and antibiotics. Packed red blood cells (PRBCs), fresh frozen plasma (FFPs) and platelets were transfused in 14 (60.9%), 3 (13.0%) and 3 (13.0%), respectively. The median PRBCs transfused was 1 (0-3) unit(s). The initial control of UGI bleeding was achieved in all 23 patients and none required an emergency endoscopy. At 5-day follow-up, none rebled or died. Two patients later rebled, one had intermittent bleed due to gastric antral vascular ectasia, while another had rebleed 19 days after discharge. Three (12.5%) cirrhosis patients succumbed to acute hypoxemic respiratory failure during hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Conservative management strategies including pharmacotherapy, restrictive transfusion strategy, and close hemodynamic monitoring can successfully manage GI bleeding in COVID-19 patients and reduce need for urgent endoscopy. The decision for proceeding with endoscopy should be taken by a multidisciplinary team after consideration of the patient's condition, response to treatment, resources and the risks involved, on a case to case basis.

Treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.

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

Background and Aim

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Outcome of Conservative Therapy in COVID-19 Patients Presenting with Gastrointestinal Bleeding.. [DOI: 10.1101/2020.08.06.20169813]

Background/Objective

There is a paucity of data on the management of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in patients with COVID-19 amid concerns about the risk of transmission during endoscopic procedures. We aimed to study the outcomes of conservative treatment for GI bleeding in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

In this retrospective analysis, 24 of 1342 (1.8%) patients with COVID-19, presenting with GI bleeding from 22 April to 22 July 2020, were included.

Results

The mean age of patients was 45.8±12.7 years; 17 (70.8%) were males; upper GI (UGI) bleeding: lower GI (LGI) 23:1. Twenty-two (91.6%) patients had evidence of cirrhosis-21 presented with UGI bleeding while one had bleeding from hemorrhoids. Two patients without cirrhosis were presumed to have non-variceal bleeding. The medical therapy for UGI bleeding included vasoconstrictors-somatostatin in 17 (73.9%) and terlipressin in 4 (17.4%) patients. All patients with UGI bleeding received proton pump inhibitors and antibiotics. Packed red blood cells (PRBCs), fresh frozen plasma and platelets were transfused in 14 (60.9%), 3 (13.0%) and 3 (13.0%), respectively. The median PRBCs transfused was 1 (0-3) unit(s). The initial control of UGI bleeding was achieved in all 23 patients and none required an emergency endoscopy. At 5-day follow-up, none rebled or died. Two patients later rebled, one had intermittent bleed due to gastric antral vascular ectasia, while another had rebleed 19 days after discharge. Three (12.5%) cirrhosis patients succumbed to acute hypoxemic respiratory failure during hospital stay.

Conclusion

Conservative management strategies including pharmacotherapy, restrictive transfusion strategy, and close hemodynamic monitoring can successfully manage GI bleeding in COVID-19 patients and reduce need for urgent endoscopy. The decision for proceeding with endoscopy should be taken by a multidisciplinary team after consideration of the patient’s condition, response to treatment, resources and the risks involved, on a case to case basis.

Evaluation and Management of Esophageal and Gastric Varices in Patients with Cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is a complication of cirrhosis that defines decompensation. Important advances in the management of gastroesophageal varices have led to a significant decrease in the morbidity and mortality. Achieving these results in clinical practice is contingent on clinicians applying the best practice strategies and appropriate referral to a tertiary center. Several quality metrics were developed by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. This article aims to update outpatient and inpatient strategies to include the latest recommendations on variceal screening and surveillance, primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and therapy for patients with acute variceal bleeding.

Poor outcomes in patients with cirrhosis and Corona Virus Disease-19

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There is a paucity of data on the clinical presentations and outcomes of Corona Virus Disease-19 (COVID-19) in patients with underlying liver disease. We aimed to summarize the presentations and outcomes of COVID-19-positive patients and compare with historical controls.

METHODS

Patients with known chronic liver disease who presented with superimposed COVID-19 (n = 28) between 22 April 2020 and 22 June 2020 were studied. Seventy-eight cirrhotic patients without COVID-19 were included as historical controls for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 28 COVID-19 patients (two without cirrhosis, one with compensated cirrhosis, sixteen with acute decompensation [AD], and nine with acute-on-chronic liver failure [ACLF]) were included. The etiology of cirrhosis was alcohol (n = 9), non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (n = 2), viral (n = 5), autoimmune hepatitis (n = 4), and cryptogenic cirrhosis (n = 6). The clinical presentations included complications of cirrhosis in 12 (46.2%), respiratory symptoms in 3 (11.5%), and combined complications of cirrhosis and respiratory symptoms in 11 (42.3%) patients. The median hospital stay was 8 (7-12) days. The mortality rate in COVID-19 patients was 42.3% (11/26), as compared with 23.1% (18/78) in the historical controls (p = 0.077). All COVID-19 patients with ACLF (9/9) died compared with 53.3% (16/30) in ACLF of historical controls (p = 0.015). Mortality rate was higher in COVID-19 patients with compensated cirrhosis and AD as compared with historical controls 2/17 (11.8%) vs. 2/48 (4.2%), though not statistically significant (p = 0.278). Requirement of mechanical ventilation independently predicted mortality (hazard ratio 13.68). Both non-cirrhotic patients presented with respiratory symptoms and recovered uneventfully.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 is associated with poor outcomes in patients with cirrhosis, with worst survival rates in ACLF. Mechanical ventilation is associated with a poor outcome.

Comparison of the effectiveness of 11 mainstay treatments for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis: A network meta-analysis

The purpose of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), endoscopic options, medications and mainstay combination therapies for patients with cirrhosis who have had at least one episode of variceal haemorrhage. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases, as well as the reference lists of relevant articles, were searched to identify eligible studies. P-scores, that were based solely on the point estimates and standard errors of the network estimates, were performed to rank all treatments, on a scale from 0 (worst) to 1 (best). The odds ratio (OR) was determined to assess effects on mortality, treatment failure and bleeding from gastroesophageal ulcers. A total of 43 randomized controlled trials comprising 3,787 adult patients were included. In total, 26 (61%) trials adopted concealed randomization, while most studies did not specify blinding. The drug combination of nadolol and isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) ranked first for lowering risks of overall mortality (P-score=0.8162), mortality due to liver failure (P-score=0.7536) and bleeding from gastroesophageal ulcers (P-score=0.7536). This combination was determined to be superior to endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) alone (OR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.42-0.94) and TIPS alone in reducing overall mortality (OR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.40-0.96). ES was more likely to increase treatment failure compared with TIPS, endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), ES plus EVL, EVL plus nadolol/propranolol plus ISMN and nadolol/propranolol plus ISMN. In conclusion, the present network meta-analysis suggested that for a decreased mortality due to variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis, nadolol plus ISMN may be a preferable choice, while ES is associated with a higher risk of unfavourable treatment outcomes. Further well-controlled studies are required to further elucidate the appropriate treatment options.

Thromboelastography-guided Blood Product Transfusion in Cirrhosis Patients With Variceal Bleeding: A Randomized Controlled Trial

GOALS

The aim of this study was to assess the use of thromboelastography (TEG)-directed blood product transfusion in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding compared with conventional transfusion for correction of coagulopathy.

BACKGROUND

Coagulopathy is common in patients with cirrhosis. Recommendations for correction of conventional parameters of coagulation-platelets and the international normalized ratio before endoscopy in patients with acute variceal bleeding-need more validation.

STUDY

In this randomized controlled trial, cirrhotic patients with severe coagulopathy and acute variceal bleeding were randomized to either TEG-guided blood product transfusion or conventional transfusion from March 2017 to December 2017. The primary outcome was the difference in the amount of fresh frozen plasma and platelet units transfused between the groups. Secondary outcomes were rebleeding at 5 days and 42 days, and 6-week mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 60 recruited patients, 30 each were randomized to the TEG and conventional transfusion groups. There were no differences in baseline characteristic and endoscopic findings between the 2 groups. Four subjects in the TEG group received blood product transfusions versus all in the conventional transfusion group (13.3% vs. 100%; P<0.001). The control of bleeding on initial endoscopy was similar in the 2 groups. Rebleeding in the TEG and conventional transfusion groups at 5 days was similar [1 (3.3%) vs. 4 (13.3%), P=0.167], whereas it was significantly less in the TEG group at 42 days [3 (10%) vs. 11 (36.7%), P=0.012]. Mortality at 6 weeks was seen in 4 (13.3%) in the TEG group and in 8 (26.7%) patients in the conventional transfusion group (P=0.176).

CONCLUSIONS

TEG-guided strategy was associated with reduced blood product transfusion to correct coagulopathy without compromising hemostasis in cirrhotic patients (Clinical trial ID: CTRI/2017/02/007864).

The Role of Non-Selective β-Blockers in Compensated Cirrhotic Patients without Major Complications

Background and Objectives: Non-selective β-blockers (NSBB) could prevent decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhotic patients with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), but remained uncertain for compensated cirrhotic patients without major complications. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between propranolol users and non-users of a CC group without major complications. Material and Methods: We conducted this population-based cohort study by using the Taiwanese Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2000. Propranolol users (classified as cumulative defined daily dose (cDDD)) and non-PPL users were matched with a 1:1 propensity score in both cohorts. Results: This study comprised 6896 propranolol users and 6896 non-propranolol users. There was no significant impact on the development of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis between the two groups (aHR: 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88~1.75; p = 0.2111). Male gender, aged condition, and non-liver related diseases (peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, dementia, pulmonary disease, and renal disease) were the independent risk factors of mortality. PPL users had significantly lower incidence of HCC development than non-users (aHR: 0.81, p = 0.0580; aHR: 0.80, p = 0.1588; and aHR: 0.49, p < 0.0001 in the groups of 1–28, 29–90, and >90 cDDD, respectively). Conclusion: The current study suggested that high cumulative doses of propranolol could decrease the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma among compensated cirrhotic patients without major complications. Further large-scale prospective studies are still required to confirm the findings in this study. Results: It remained uncertain whether non-selective β-blockers (NSBB) could prevent decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in compensatory cirrhotic patients without major complications. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between propranolol users and non-users of the CC group without major complications.

The efficacy comparison of carvedilol plus endoscopic variceal ligation and traditional, nonselective β-blockers plus endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhosis patients for the prevention of variceal rebleeding: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, the first-line treatment regimen in cirrhotic patients for variceal rebleeding prophylaxis is still under debate.

AIM

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of carvedilol plus endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and traditional, nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) plus EVL in preventing variceal rebleeding.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Studies were found in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Med Online, and Wiper Database. Review Manager 5.3 was used to analyze the relevant data.

RESULTS

Nine trials including 802 patients were identified (402 for carvedilol and 400 for traditional NSBBs). Carvedilol was more efficacious than traditional NSBBs in decreasing the variceal rebleeding rate [odds ratio (OR): 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-0.75; P = 0.0003], lowering the degree of esophageal varices (OR: 4.40; 95% CI: 2.64-7.34; P < 0.00001), decreasing the mean arterial pressure (standard mean difference: - 0.35; 95% CI: - 0.56 to - 0.14; P = 0.0009), reducing the total adverse events occurrence (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.28-0.53; P < 0.00001), and decreasing drug-related adverse events (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.25-0.56; P < 0.00001). No difference was noted between carvedilol and traditional NSBBs with respect to mortality and heart rate (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.43; 1.22; P = 0.22 and standard mean difference: 0.09; 95% CI: - 0.12 to 0.30; P = 0.40, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Combined with variceal ligation, carvedilol was more effective and safer than traditional NSBBs in the prevention of rebleeding in cirrhotic patients.

Carvedilol for prevention of variceal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Beta-blockers are used for prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of carvedilol for primary or secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and gray literature sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carvedilol with placebo or any active intervention. We synthesized data using random effects models. We summarized the strength of evidence using GRADE criteria.

Results

We included 13 trials with 1598 patients. Carvedilol was as efficacious as endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) (4 RCTs, risk ratio [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-1.49) or propranolol (3 RCTs, RR 0.76, 95%CI 0.27-2.14) for primary prevention of variceal bleeding. Likewise, carvedilol was as efficacious as EVL (3 RCTs, RR 1.10, 95%CI 0.75-1.61), non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) plus isosorbide-5-mononitrate (2 RCTs, RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.70-1.51) or propranolol (2 RCTs, RR 0.39, 95%CI 0.15-1.03) for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding. Carvedilol was associated with lower all-cause mortality compared to EVL (3 RCTs, RR 0.51, 95%CI 0.33-0.79). There was no difference in any other efficacy outcome. Finally, there were no significant differences in the safety profiles compared with EVL and NSBBs. Our confidence in the effect estimates for all outcomes was very low.

Conclusion

Carvedilol is as efficacious and safe as standard-of-care interventions for the primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha₁-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I² values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I² = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I² = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I² = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.