Prospective randomized trial: endoscopic follow up 3 vs 6 months after esophageal variceal eradication by band ligation in cirrhosis

Secondary Prevention of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding Is Often Imperfect: A National, Population-Based Cohort Study of 3592 Patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding is important to improve prognosis, but uptake of guidelines is unknown in a real-world setting. Here, we determined the proportion of patients receiving appropriate nonselective beta-blocker treatment and repeat upper endoscopy after a first episode of esophageal variceal bleeding within a reasonable time frame.

METHODS

Population-based registers were used to identify all patients with a first episode of esophageal variceal bleeding in Sweden from 2006 to 2020. Crosslinkage between registers was performed to receive information on the cumulative incidence of patients with a dispensation of nonselective beta-blockers and repeat upper endoscopy within 120 days from baseline. Overall mortality was investigated using Cox regression.

RESULTS

In total, 3592 patients were identified, with a median age of 63 (interquartile range, 54-71) years. The cumulative incidence of a dispensation of nonselective beta-blockers and a repeat endoscopy within 120 days was 33%. A total of 77% received either of these treatments. Overall mortality was high, with 65% of patients dying after esophageal variceal bleeding during the full follow-up period (median 1.7 years). We observed an improved overall mortality during the later years of the study period (adjusted hazard ratio for the 2016-2020 period compared with the 2006-2010 period, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.89). Patients with receipt of nonselective beta-blockers and repeat upper endoscopy had better overall survival compared with those without (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding has not been widely undertaken, with many patients not receiving guideline-supported interventions within a reasonable time frame. This highlights a need to raise awareness on appropriate prevention strategies to clinicians and patients.

Adherence to Non-Selective Beta Blockers for Prevention of Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Long-term use of non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) is essential for the prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis but may impair the patient's adherence. The present study aimed to investigate the adherence to NSBBs to prevent variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

All patients who had an indication of NSBBs for the prophylaxis of variceal bleeding between February 2018 and June 2019 were screened. Clinical pharmacists gave pre-medication education and recorded the adherence to NSBBs during the patients' hospitalizations. Factors associated with poor adherence were evaluated by univariate logistic regression analysis. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The relationship between poor adherence during follow-up and variceal bleeding after discharge was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 108 patients were screened, of whom 12 were intolerant to NSBBs. Among the 96 remaining patients who could take NSBBs, the average change of heart rate after NSBBs was -10.49 b.p.m. Twenty-two (22.9%) patients had poor adherence to NSBBs due to their refusal to take NSBBs (n = 2), complete forgetfulness to take NSBBs (n = 10), and refusal or forgetfulness to monitor heart rate (n = 10). Univariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that only older age was significantly associated with poor adherence (OR: 1.065, 95% CI: 1.019-1.114, P = 0.005). Patients with poor adherence during follow-up were more likely to develop variceal bleeding after discharge.

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of cirrhotic patients had poor adherence to NSBBs during their hospitalizations. Further studies should explore how to improve the patient's adherence to NSBBs.

Use of nonselective β blockers after variceal eradication in cirrhotic patients undergoing secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding: a critical review of current evidence

Nonselective β blockers (NSBBs) combined with esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) are recommended for secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) in cirrhotic patients according to the current practice guidelines and consensus. However, until now, there is a paucity of recommendations regarding the use of NSBBs in cirrhotic patients who achieved variceal eradication. In this review paper, we firstly introduced a case who achieved variceal eradication after additional use of NSBBs for secondary prophylaxis of EVB and then did not require further endoscopic therapy during repeated endoscopic surveillance, and subsequently discuss the importance of NSBBs for secondary prophylaxis of EVB, the effect of NSBBs after variceal eradication, adherence to NSBBs, screening for variceal recurrence, and timing of endoscopic surveillance after variceal eradication.

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.

U.K. guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients

These updated guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage have been commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee (CSSC) of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the liver section of the BSG. The original guidelines which this document supersedes were written in 2000 and have undergone extensive revision by 13 members of the Guidelines Development Group (GDG). The GDG comprises elected members of the BSG liver section, representation from British Association for the Study of the Liver (BASL) and Liver QuEST, a nursing representative and a patient representative. The quality of evidence and grading of recommendations was appraised using the AGREE II tool.The nature of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients with its complex range of complications makes rigid guidelines inappropriate. These guidelines deal specifically with the management of varices in patients with cirrhosis under the following subheadings: (1) primary prophylaxis; (2) acute variceal haemorrhage; (3) secondary prophylaxis of variceal haemorrhage; and (4) gastric varices. They are not designed to deal with (1) the management of the underlying liver disease; (2) the management of variceal haemorrhage in children; or (3) variceal haemorrhage from other aetiological conditions.