A randomized controlled trial of emergency treatment of bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis for hepatocellular carcinoma

CT hepatic arterial perfusion index does not allow stratification of the degree of esophageal varices and bleeding risk in cirrhotic patients in Child-Pugh classes A and B

Purpose

To evaluate if the hepatic arterial perfusion index (HPI) in liver parenchyma of cirrhotic patients can serve as a surrogate parameter for stratifying the degree of esophageal varices and related bleeding risks.

Methods

CT image data of sixty-six patients (59 men; mean age 68 years ± 10 years) with liver cirrhosis (Child–Pugh class A (35/66, 53%), B (25/66, 38%), and C (6/66, 9%) who underwent perfusion CT (PCT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening between April 2010 and January 2019 were retrospectively identified. HPI, a parameter calculated by a commercially available CT liver perfusion analysis software that is based on the double maximum slope model, using time attenuation curve to determine perfusion, was correlated with the degree of esophageal varices diagnosed at endoscopy and the number of bleeding events.

Results

Eta correlation coefficient for HPI/presence of esophageal varices was very weak (0.083). Spearman-Rho for HPI/grading of esophageal varices was very weak (0.037 (p = 0.804)). Kendall-Tau-b for HPI/grading of esophageal varices was very weak (0.027 (p = 0.807)). ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc-tests showed no significant difference of HPI between different grades of esophageal varices (F (3, 62) = 1.676, p = 0.186). Eta correlation coefficient for HPI/bleeding event was very weak (0.126).

Conclusion

The stratification of the degree of esophageal varices and the related bleeding risk by correlation with the HPI as a surrogate parameter for portal venous hypertension was not possible for patients with liver cirrhosis in Child–Pugh class A and B.

Graphic abstract

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.

Prophylactic Endoscopic Therapy for Variceal Bleeding in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background & Aims: To evaluate the efficacy and timing of secondary prophylactic endoscopic therapy for variceal bleeding. To determine the long-term survival and identify the prognostic factors in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Methods: A Retrospective study was conducted. We included patients with concurrent hepatic carcinoma who received endoscopic therapy for variceal bleeding. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Potential factors for prediction were compared with Cox's proportional hazard model analysis.

Results: 192 patients were included between January 2008 and December 2014. During follow-up (median 17 months), 102 patients presented with an episode of rebleeding. The cumulative 6-month, 1- and 5-year rebleeding rates were 40.9%, 49.3% and 71.2%. A total of 98 patients died during follow-up. The overall 6-month, 1-and 5-year cumulative mortality rates were 33.5%, 45.8% and 65.7%. BCLC C/D stage (P=0.035, HR=1.53, 95% CI 1.003-2.327) was an independent predictor of bleeding relapse, while BCLC C/D staging (P=0.035, HR=1.59, 95% CI 1.033-2.454) and male gender (P=0.007, HR=1.58, 95% CI 1.135-2.198) predicted shorter survival times. Combination ligation and cyanoacrylate was associated with a decreased rebleeding and mortality rate in patients with both esophageal and gastric varices (P=0.003). The start time of the initial endoscopic procedure did not affect treatment efficacy.

Conclusions: Ligation combined with cyanoacrylate could be preferred for HCC patients presented with both esophageal and gastric varices. BCLC C/D stage predicted shorter survival times and bleeding relapse, while male gender was an independent predictor of poor survival.

Latin American Association for the Study of the Liver (LAASL) clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer in the world and the third most common cause of cancer death, and accounts for 5.6% of all cancers. Nearly 82% of the approximately 550,000 liver cancer deaths each year occur in Asia. In some regions, cancer-related death from HCC is second only to lung cancer. The incidence and mortality of HCC are increasing in America countries as a result of an ageing cohort infected with chronic hepatitis C, and are expected to continue to rise as a consequence of the obesity epidemic. Clinical care and survival for patients with HCC has advanced considerably during the last two decades, thanks to improvements in patient stratification, an enhanced understanding of the pathophysiology of the disease, and because of developments in diagnostic procedures and the introduction of novel therapies and strategies in prevention. Nevertheless, HCC remains the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. These LAASL recommendations on treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma are intended to assist physicians and other healthcare providers, as well as patients and other interested individuals, in the clinical decision-making process by describing the optimal management of patients with liver cancer.

Systematic review of radiofrequency ablation versus percutaneous ethanol injection for small hepatocellular carcinoma up to 3 cm

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI) have been used for patients with hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) < 3 cm, but there is controversy which of the two methods is superior. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review to assess survival, complete tumor necrosis, recurrence and metastasis, major complications, costs, hospital stays, and posttreatment survival quality of RFA versus PEI for treating small HCCs < 3 cm.

METHODS

We conducted a search for published articles in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library until March 2012. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized clinical trials were included.

RESULTS

Four RCTs with 766 patients were included in this review. We found that RFA is significantly better than PEI with respect to a 3-year overall survival for small HCCs (RFA vs PEI, hazard ratios [HR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-0.90, P = 0.009), especially for HCCs > 2 cm (HR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.31-0.99, P = 0.045). RFA had a lower risk of local recurrence (HR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.15-0.96, P = 0.040), but no difference is seen for distant intrahepatic recurrence. RFA had higher rates of complete tumor necrosis, but RFA also caused more major complications and was more costly than PEI. Begg's and Egger's tests detected no significant publication bias among the four RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

RFA appears superior to PEI with respect to local tumor control and 3-year survival for small HCCs < 3 cm. RFA was more feasible in patients with HCCs > 2 cm or Child-Pugh A liver function.

Randomized controlled trial of emergency transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus emergency portacaval shunt treatment of acute bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Emergency treatment of bleeding esophageal varices (BEV) in cirrhosis is of paramount importance because of the resultant high mortality rate. Emergency therapy today consists mainly of endoscopic and pharmacologic measures, with use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) when bleeding is not controlled. Surgical portosystemic shunt has been relegated to last resort salvage when all other measures fail. Regrettably, no randomized controlled trials have been reported in which TIPS and surgical portosystemic shunt were compared in unselected patients with acute BEV, with long-term follow-up. This is a report of a long-term prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared TIPS with emergency portacaval shunt (EPCS) in patients with cirrhosis and acute BEV.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 154 unselected, consecutive cirrhotic patients ("all comers") with acute BEV were randomized to TIPS (n = 78) or EPCS (n = 76), and the two treatments were compared with regard to effect on survival, control of bleeding, portal-systemic encephalopathy (PSE), and disability. Diagnostic workup was completed within 6 h and TIPS or EPCS was initiated within 24 h. Regular follow-up was accomplished in 100 % of patients and lasted for 5 to 10 years in 85 % and 3 to 4.5 years in the remainder. This report focuses on control of bleeding and survival.

RESULTS

The clinical characteristics of the two groups were similar, and the distribution of Child classes A, B, and C was almost identical. TIPS was successful in controlling BEV for 30 days in 80 % of patients but achieved long-term control of BEV in only 22 %. In contrast, EPCS controlled BEV immediately in all patients and permanently in 97 % (p < 0.001). TIPS patients required almost twice as many units of blood transfusion as EPCS patients. Survival rate at all time intervals and in all Child classes was significantly greater following EPCS than after TIPS (p < 0.001). Median survival was over 10 years following EPCS, compared to 1.99 years following TIPS. Stenosis or occlusion of TIPS was demonstrated in 84 % of patients who survived 21 days, 63 % of whom underwent TIPS revision, which failed in 80 %. In contrast, EPCS remained permanently patent in 97 % of patients. Recurrent PSE was threefold more frequent following TIPS than after EPCS (61 versus 21 %).

CONCLUSIONS

EPCS was uniformly effective in the treatment of BEV, while TIPS was disappointing. EPCS accomplished long-term survival while TIPS resulted in a survival rate that was less than one fifth that of EPCS. The results of this RCT in unselected, consecutive patients justify the use of EPCS as a first-line emergency treatment of BEV in cirrhosis (clinicaltrials.gov #NCT00734227).

Disability index in a randomized controlled trial of emergency sclerotherapy versus portacaval shunt for bleeding varices in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Disability has not been studied after emergency treatment of bleeding esophageal varices (BEV). We created a disability index (DI) in a randomized controlled trial comparing emergency endoscopic therapy (EST) versus emergency portacaval shunt (EPCS).

METHODS

There were 211 unselected, consecutive patients with cirrhosis and acute BEV who were randomized to EST (n = 106) or EPCS (n = 105). Diagnostic work-up and treatment were performed within 8 hours. Ninety-six percent underwent more than 10 years follow-up evaluation. Disability was measured by assessing 9 factors to create a DI.

RESULTS

Ten-year survival was 8% after EST versus 51% after EPCS (P < .001). EPCS had a significantly better DI. The EST and EPCS values were as follows: liver function improvement: not applicable and ++; worsening liver function, ++ and not applicable; portal-systemic encephalopathy (PSE) incidence, 36 and 15; PSE episodes, 179 and 94; packed red blood cell units, 1,005 and 320; hospital readmissions, 387 and 292; and number of readmission days, 9.6 and 4.7. All of the P values were less than .001.

CONCLUSIONS

EPCS resulted in a markedly better DI than EST, a significantly higher survival rate, better control of bleeding, and a lower incidence of PSE. EPCS is an effective first-line emergency treatment of BEV.