Carvedilol vs. esophageal variceal band ligation in the primary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage: a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Clinical Trial: A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial of Carvedilol Versus Variceal Band Ligation in Primary Prevention of Variceal Bleeding in Liver Cirrhosis (CALIBRE Trial)

BACKGROUND

The superior efficacy of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) compared with variceal band ligation (VBL) in the primary prevention of variceal bleeding is uncertain.

AIM

To compare carvedilol versus VBL for primary prevention of variceal bleeding.

METHODS

CALIBRE was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label trial. Participants were randomly assigned to 12.5 mg carvedilol once daily or VBL. Inclusion criteria were cirrhosis and medium to large oesophageal varices that had not bled. The primary outcome is any variceal bleeding within 1 year of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include survival, other complications of cirrhosis, quality of life, cost-effectiveness and adverse events. Recruitment closed early, mainly due to the impact of the pandemic.

RESULTS

265 participants (10% of the intended sample size) from 52 sites were randomised to carvedilol (n = 133) or VBL (n = 132) between 22 January 2019 and 31 August 2022. 5/133 participants (3.8%) in the carvedilol arm vs. 10/132 participants (7.6%) in the VBL arm experienced variceal bleeding (risk ratio 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.17-1.41); risk difference - 0.038 (95% CI; -0.094-0.017)). Serious adverse events occurred in one participant in each treatment arm, with no treatment-related deaths. Of the secondary outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences. Carvedilol was cheaper and resulted in slightly more quality-adjusted life years than VBL.

CONCLUSIONS

The early terminated and, thus, underpowered CALIBRE trial showed no difference between carvedilol and VBL in the primary prevention of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis and medium-to large-sized oesophageal varices. No untoward safety concerns were noted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN73887615.

Safety of Anticoagulant Treatment in Patients With Splanchnic Vein Thrombosis and History of Portal Hypertension-Related Bleeding

Splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) can be associated with liver cirrhosis or prothrombotic conditions, including myeloproliferative disorders, intra-abdominal inflammation, solid cancers or surgery. While anticoagulation therapy improves outcomes in noncirrhotic patients and reduces all-cause mortality in cirrhotic populations, its safety in patients with a history of portal hypertension (PH)-related bleeding is less clear. This systematic review examines the impact of anticoagulant therapy on rebleeding risk in SVT patients with a history of PH-related bleeding. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus was performed for studies published up to September 2024. Studies were included if they compared SVT patients with a history of PH-related bleeding receiving anticoagulant therapy versus those not receiving anticoagulants. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of PH-related rebleedings. Of 2853 identified studies, five (186 participants) met the inclusion criteria: two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three observational studies. The cumulative incidence of PH-related rebleeding was significantly lower in the anticoagulant group at 17.10% [95% CI 17.02, 17.19] compared to the control group at 40.00% [95% CI 39.90, 40.09]. The overall odds ratio (OR) from observational studies was 0.15 [95% CI 0.04, 0.52], indicating a reduced bleeding risk, while the OR from RCTs was 0.84 [95% CI 0.31, 2.32], showing a nonsignificant trend. Anticoagulant therapy may reduce rebleeding risk in SVT patients with a history of PH-related bleeding, but further high-quality studies are needed.

Combination of carvedilol with variceal band ligation in prevention of first variceal bleed in Child-Turcotte-Pugh B and C cirrhosis with high-risk oesophageal varices: the 'CAVARLY TRIAL'

OBJECTIVES

Beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal band ligation (VBL) have been preferred therapies for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. However, the choice of therapy in patients with advanced liver disease with high-risk varices is not clear. A comparison of these therapies alone or in combination to prevent the first variceal bleed in advanced cirrhosis patients was carried out.

DESIGN

330 Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) B and C cirrhosis patients, with 'high-risk' varices were prospectively enrolled (n=110 per group) to receive carvedilol (group A), VBL (group B) or combination (group C). Primary endpoint was reduction in the incidence of first variceal bleed at 12 months. The secondary endpoints included overall mortality, bleed-related mortality, new-onset decompensation, change in hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG) and treatment-related adverse events.

RESULTS

The patients were predominantly males (85.2%), aged 51.4±10.5 years with CTP score of 8.87±1.24, MELD score 15.17±3.35 and HVPG-16.96±3.57 mm Hg. The overall incidence of variceal bleed was 23.8% (n=78) at 1 year. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that the combination arm (group C) significantly reduced the incidence of first variceal bleed by 62.9% as compared with group B (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.192 to 0.716, p<0.003) and by 69.3% as compared with group A (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.163 to 0.578, <0.001). The overall mortality was 13.6% (45/330). The 1-year mortality in group C was lowest among the three groups (A, B, C=20%, 14.5%, 6.3%, p=0.012). Reduction in HVPG (20.8% vs 25.1%, p=0.54) and the rate of non-response to carvedilol (53.4% vs 41.25%, p=0.154) were not different between group A and C patients. The incidence of new-onset ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, shock, and acute kidney injury and postbleed organ failure was also comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSION

In CTP B and C cirrhosis patients with high-risk varices, combination of carvedilol and VBL is more effective than either therapy alone, for primary prevention of variceal bleeding.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03069339.

Management of Portal Hypertension in the Older Patient

PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW

Aging is a process of physiological slowing, reduced regenerative capacity and inability to maintain cellular homeostasis. World Health Organisation declared the commencement of population aging globally, largely attributed to improvement in the healthcare system with early diagnosis and effective clinical management. Liver ages similar to other organs, with reduction in size and blood flow. In this review we aim to evaluate the effect of aging in liver disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Aging causes dysregulation of major carbohydrate, fat and protein metabolism in the liver. Age is a major risk factor for liver fibrosis accelerated by sinusoidal endothelial dysfunction and immunological disharmony. Age plays a major role in patients with liver cirrhosis and influence outcomes in patients with portal hypertension. Transient elastography may be an useful tool in the assessment of portal hypertension. Hepatic structural distortion, increased vascular resistance, state of chronic inflammation, associated comorbidities, lack of physiological reserve in the older population may aggravate portal hypertension in patients with liver cirrhosis and may result in pronounced variceal bleed. Cut-offs for other non-invasive markers of fibrosis may differ in the elderly population. Non-selective beta blockers initiated at lower dose followed by escalation are the first line of therapy in elderly patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, unless contraindicated. Acute variceal bleed in the elderly cirrhotic patients can be life threatening and may cause rapid exsanguination due to poor reserve and associated comorbidities. Vasoactive drugs may be associated with more adverse reactions. Early endoscopy may be warranted in the elderly patients with acute variceal bleed. Role of TIPS in the elderly cirrhotics discussed. Management of portal hypertension in the older population may pose significant challenges to the treating clinician.

Efficacy and safety of variceal embolization for primary prophylaxis in cirrhosis patients with challenges in standard treatments: preliminary results

Objectives

Nonselective beta blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic therapies are currently recommended by guidelines for preventing the first variceal bleed in patients with high-risk varices. However, there is a lack of detailed treatment strategies for patients who are intolerant to both NSBBs and endoscopic approaches. Our study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of variceal embolization as a primary prophylaxis method in cirrhosis patients who are not suitable candidates for NSBBs or endoscopic treatments.

Methods

The study included 43 cirrhotic patients with high-risk varices who were candidates for primary prophylaxis against variceal bleeding. These patients underwent variceal embolization at the Xijing Hospital between January 2020 and June 2022. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of bleeding from varices, and the secondary endpoints were the recurrence of varices and the emergence of complications.

Results

The procedure of variceal embolization had a success rate of 93.0% (40 out of 43 patients). Over a 2-year follow-up period, the rate of variceal bleeding was 11.6% (5 out of 43 patients), the recurrence rate of varices was 14.0% (6 out of 43 patients), and the rate of severe complications was limited to 2.3% (1 out of 43 patients).

Conclusion

Variceal embolization is a viable primary prophylactic intervention for cirrhotic patients who are at risk of variceal bleeding when standard treatments, such as NSBBs or endoscopic therapies, are difficult to perform.

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

Endoscopic variceal ligation versus propranolol for the primary prevention of oesophageal variceal bleeding in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: an open-label, two-centre, randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This randomised trial aimed to address whether endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) or propranolol (PPL) is more effective at preventing initial oesophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

DESIGN

Patients with HCC and medium-to-large oesophageal varices (EVs) but without previous EVB were randomised to receive EVL (every 3-4 weeks until variceal eradication) or PPL (up to 320 mg daily) at a 1:1 ratio. Long-term follow-up data on EVB, other upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), non-bleeding liver decompensation, overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) were analysed using competing risk regression.

RESULTS

Between June 2011 and April 2021, 144 patients were randomised to receive EVL (n=72) or PPL (n=72). In the EVL group, 7 patients experienced EVB, and 30 died; in the PPL group, 19 patients had EVB, and 40 died. The EVL group had a lower cumulative incidence of EVB (Gray's test, p=0.009) than its counterpart, with no mortality difference (Gray's test, p=0.085). For patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage A/B, EVL was better than PPL in reducing EVB (p<0.001) and mortality (p=0.003). For patients beyond BCLC stage B, between-group outcomes were similar. Other UGIB, non-bleeding liver decompensation and AEs did not differ between groups. A competing risk regression model confirmed the prognostic value of EVL.

CONCLUSION

EVL is superior to PPL in preventing initial EVB in patients with HCC. The benefits of EVL on EVB and OS may be limited to patients with BCLC stage A/B and not to those with BCLC stage C/D.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01970748.

Improving primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding by adapting therapy to the clinical stage of cirrhosis. A competing-risk meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Non-selective β-blockers (NSBBs) and endoscopic variceal-ligation (EVL) have similar efficacy preventing first variceal bleeding. Compensated and decompensated cirrhosis are markedly different stages, which may impact treatment outcomes. We aimed to assess the efficacy of NSBBs vs EVL on survival in patients with high-risk varices without previous bleeding, stratifying risk according to compensated/decompensated stage of cirrhosis.

METHODS

By systematic review, we identified RCTs comparing NSBBs vs EVL, in monotherapy or combined, for primary bleeding prevention. We performed a competing-risk, time-to-event meta-analysis, using individual patient data (IPD) obtained from principal investigators of RCTs. Analyses were stratified according to previous decompensation of cirrhosis.

RESULTS

Of 25 RCTs eligible, 14 failed to provide IPD and 11 were included, comprising 1400 patients (656 compensated, 744 decompensated), treated with NSBBs (N = 625), EVL (N = 546) or NSBB+EVL (N = 229). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Overall, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs (subdistribution hazard-ratio (sHR) = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.75-1.49) and with EVL + NSBBs vs either monotherapy, with low heterogeneity (I2  = 28.7%). In compensated patients, mortality risk was higher with EVL vs NSBBs (sHR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.11-2.77) and not significantly lower with NSBBs+EVL vs NSBBs, without heterogeneity (I2  = 0%). In decompensated patients, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs and with NSBBs+EVL vs. either monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with compensated cirrhosis and high-risk varices on primary prophylaxis, NSBBs significantly improved survival vs EVL, with no additional benefit noted adding EVL to NSBBs. In decompensated patients, survival was similar with both therapies. The study suggests that NSBBs are preferable when advising preventive therapy in compensated patients.

Quantifying the benefit of nonselective beta-blockers in the prevention of hepatic decompensation: A Bayesian reanalysis of the PREDESCI trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Beta-blockers have been studied for the prevention of variceal bleeding and, more recently, for the prevention of all-cause decompensation. Some uncertainties regarding the benefit of beta-blockers for the prevention of decompensation remain. Bayesian analyses enhance the interpretation of trials. The purpose of this study was to provide clinically meaningful estimates of both the probability and magnitude of the benefit of beta-blocker treatment across a range of patient types.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

We undertook a Bayesian reanalysis of PREDESCI incorporating 3 priors (moderate neutral, moderate optimistic, and weak pessimistic). The probability of clinical benefit was assessed considering the prevention of all-cause decompensation. Microsimulation analyses were done to determine the magnitude of the benefit. In the Bayesian analysis, the probability that beta-blockers reduce all-cause decompensation was >0.93 for all priors. The Bayesian posterior hazard ratios (HR) for decompensation ranged from 0.50 (optimistic prior, 95% credible interval 0.27-0.93) to 0.70 (neutral prior, 95% credible interval 0.44-1.12). Exploring the benefit of treatment using microsimulation highlights substantial treatment benefits. For the neutral prior derived posterior HR and a 5% annual incidence of decompensation, at 10 years, an average of 497 decompensation-free years per 1000 patients were gained with treatment. In contrast, at 10 years 1639 years per 1000 patients were gained from the optimistic prior derived posterior HR and a 10% incidence of decompensation.

CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blocker treatment is associated with a high probability of clinical benefit. This likely translates to a substantial gain in decompensation-free life years at the population level.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided portal pressure gradient measurement in managing portal hypertension

Portal hypertension (PH) is still a challenging clinical condition due to its silent manifestations in the early stage and needs to be measured accurately for early detection. Hepatic vein pressure gradient measurement has been considered as the gold standard measurement for PH; however, it needs special skill, experience, and high expertise. Recently, there has been an innovative development in using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for the diagnosis and management of liver diseases, including portal pressure measurement, which is commonly known as EUS-guided portal pressure gradient (EUS-PPG) measurement. EUS-PPG measurement can be performed concomitantly with EUS evaluation for deep esophageal varices, EUS-guided liver biopsy, and EUS-guided cyanoacrylate injection. However, there are still major issues, such as different etiologies of liver disease, procedural training, expertise, availability, and cost-effectiveness in several situations with regard to the standard management.

Review article: controversies surrounding the use of carvedilol and other beta blockers in the management of portal hypertension and cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Advanced chronic liver disease is an increasing cause of premature morbidity and mortality in the UK. Portal hypertension is the primary driver of decompensation, including the development of ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and variceal haemorrhage. Non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) reduce portal pressure and are well established in the prevention of variceal haemorrhage. Carvedilol, a newer NSBB, is more effective at reducing portal pressure due to additional α-adrenergic blockade and has additional anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic effects.

AIM

To summarise the available evidence on the use of beta blockers, specifically carvedilol, in cirrhosis, focussing on when and why to start METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed for relevant publications.

RESULTS

International guidelines advise the use of NSBB in primary prophylaxis against variceal haemorrhage in those with high-risk varices, with substantial evidence of efficacy comparable with endoscopic band ligation (EBL). NSBB are also well established in secondary prophylaxis, in combination with EBL. More controversial is their use in patients without large varices, but with clinically significant portal hypertension. However, there is gathering evidence that NSBB, particularly carvedilol, reduce the risk of decompensation and improve survival. While caution is advised in patients with advanced cirrhosis and refractory ascites, recent evidence suggests that NSBB can continue to be used safely, and that premature discontinuation may be detrimental.

CONCLUSIONS

With increasing evidence of benefit independent of variceal bleeding, namely retardation of decompensation and improvement in survival, it is time to consider whether carvedilol should be offered to all patients with advanced chronic liver disease.

Liver Cirrhosis and Portal Hypertension

The understanding of pathogenesis of portal hypertension in patients with liver cirrhosis continues to evolve. In addition to progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis is characterized by parenchymal extinction and vascular remodelling, causing architectural distortion. Existence of prothrombotic state and more recently, intestinal bacterial dysbiosis are recently described in the pathogenesis of portal hypertension. Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) is an important prognostic milestone in patients with liver cirrhosis. This is a pre-symptomatic phase that predicts the development of varices, ascites and importantly increased risk of Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). CSPH is associated with significantly reduced survival. Endoscopic surveillance is necessary in these patients. Non-selective Beta-blocker is the preferred therapy for primary prophylaxis in the management of portal hypertension. Patients with acute variceal bleed should be resuscitated appropriately, followed by vasoactive drugs and endoscopic therapy. Early TIPS should be considered in those with refractory bleed or in endoscopic treatment failure. Application of artificial intelligence and machine learning may be useful in future for identifying patients at risk of variceal hemorrhage.

Evolution of care in cirrhosis: Preventing hepatic decompensation through pharmacotherapy

Cirrhosis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, impacting more than 120 million people worldwide. Although geographic differences exist, etiologic factors such as alcohol use disorder, chronic viral hepatitis infections, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease are prevalent in nearly every region. Historically, significant effort has been devoted to modifying these risks to prevent disease progression. Nevertheless, more than 11% of patients with compensated cirrhosis experience hepatic decompensation each year. This transition signifies the most important prognostic factor in the natural history of the disease, corresponding to a decline in median survival to below 2 years. Over the past decade, the need for pharmacotherapies aimed at reducing the risk for hepatic decompensation has been emphasized, and non-selective beta-blockers have emerged as the most effective option to date. However, a critical therapeutic gap still exists, and additional therapies have been proposed, including statins, rifaximin, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Based on the results of innovative retrospective analyses and small-scale prospective trials, these pharmacotherapies represent promising options, but further studies, including randomized controlled trials, are necessary before they can be incorporated into clinical use. This report highlights the potential impact of these agents and others in preventing hepatic decompensation and discusses how this paradigm shift may pave the way for guideline-directed medical therapy in cirrhosis.

Carvedilol reduces the risk of decompensation and mortality in patients with compensated cirrhosis in a competing-risk meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Whether non-selective β-blockers can prevent decompensation of cirrhosis warrants clarification. Carvedilol might be particularly effective since its intrinsic vasodilatory activity may ameliorate hepatic vascular resistance, a major mechanism of portal hypertension in early cirrhosis. We assessed whether carvedilol may prevent decompensation and improve survival in patients with compensated cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH).

METHODS

By systematic review we identified randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carvedilol vs. control therapy (no-active treatment or endoscopic variceal ligation [EVL]) in patients with cirrhosis and CSPH without previous bleeding. We performed a competing-risk time-to-event meta-analysis using individual patient data (IPD) obtained from principal investigators of RCTs. Only compensated patients were included. Primary outcomes were prevention of decompensation (liver transplantation and death were competing events) and death (liver transplantation was a competing event). Models were adjusted using propensity scores for baseline covariates with the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach.

RESULTS

Among 125 full-text studies evaluated, 4 RCTs were eligible. The 4 provided IPD and were included, comprising 352 patients with compensated cirrhosis, 181 treated with carvedilol and 171 controls (79 received EVL and 92 placebo). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Standardized differences were <10% by IPTW. The risk of developing decompensation of cirrhosis was lower with carvedilol than in controls (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 0.506; 95% CI 0.289-0.887; p = 0.017; I2 = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.880), mainly due to a reduced risk of ascites (SHR 0.491; 95% CI 0.247-0.974; p = 0.042; I2 = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.384). The risk of death was also lower with carvedilol (SHR 0.417; 95% CI 0.194-0.896; p = 0.025; I2 = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.989).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term carvedilol therapy reduced decompensation of cirrhosis and significantly improved survival in compensated patients with CSPH. This suggests that screening patients with compensated cirrhosis for CSPH to enable the prompt initiation of carvedilol could improve outcomes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019144786.

LAY SUMMARY

The transition from compensated cirrhosis to decompensated cirrhosis is associated with markedly reduced life expectancy. Therefore, preventing decompensation in patients with compensated cirrhosis would be associated with greatly improved patient outcomes. There has been controversy regarding the use of non-selective β-blockers (portal pressure-lowering medications) in patients with cirrhosis and elevated portal blood pressure (portal hypertension). Herein, using a competing-risk meta-analysis to optimize sample size and properly investigate cirrhosis as a multistate disease and outcomes as time-dependent events, we show that carvedilol (a non-selective β-blocker) is associated with a reduced risk of decompensating events and improved survival in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

Associations Between Endoscopic Primary Prophylaxis and Rebleeding in Liver Cirrhosis Patients with Esophagogastric Variceal Bleeding

Aim

To identify the association between endoscopic primary prophylaxis and the risk of rebleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis receiving endoscopic therapy.

Methods

This cohort study involved in 944 liver cirrhosis patients with esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB) receiving endoscopic therapy. All participants were divided into two groups: rebleeding group (n = 425) and non-rebleeding group (n = 519) according to the occurrence of rebleeding in patients. Rebleeding indicated any bleeding after endoscopic therapy for the first bleeding of esophagogastric varices in liver cirrhosis patients. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses were employed to identify the association between endoscopic primary prophylaxis and rebleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis after endoscopic therapy.

Results

In total, 425 patients rebleeded at the end of the follow-up. The risk of rebleeding in patients with endoscopic primary prophylaxis decreased by 0.773 times (OR = 0.227, 95%CI: 0.139–0.372, P < 0.001) after adjusting covariables. Subgroups were divided according to the Child-Pugh (CP) score, and the results revealed that the risk of rebleeding in patients with endoscopic primary prophylaxis decreased by 0.858 times in Grade A patients (OR = 0.142, 95%CI: 0.066–0.304, P < 0.001) and 0.804 times in Grade B patients (OR = 0.196, 95%CI: 0.085–0.451, P < 0.001) compared with patients without endoscopic primary prophylaxis, but showed no difference in Grade C patients.

Conclusion

Endoscopic primary prophylaxis was associated with a decreased risk of rebleeding in liver cirrhosis patients with EGVB after endoscopic therapy, which suggested that clinicians should pay more attention to endoscopic primary prophylaxis to prevent the occurrence of rebleeding in these patients.

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

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

Portal Hypertension and Ascites: Patient-and Population-centered Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF)

Portal hypertension and ascites are two crucial events in the natural history of liver cirrhosis, whose appearance marks a downward shift in the prognosis of the disease. Over the years, several international and national societies have issued clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of portal hypertension and ascites. The present document addresses the needs of an updated guidance on the clinical management of these conditions. Accordingly, the AISF Governing Board appointed a multi-disciplinary committee of experts for drafting an update of the most recent EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines. The aim of this work was to adapt the EASL recommendations to national regulations and resources, local circumstances and settings, infrastructure, and cost/benefit strategies to avoid duplication of efforts and optimize resource utilization. The committee defined the objectives, the key issues and retrieved the relevant evidence by performing a systematic review of the literature. Finally, the committee members (chosen on the basis of their specific expertise) identified the guidelines' key questions and developed them following the PICO format (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes). For each of the PICO questions, the systematic review of the literature was made on the most important scientific databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Embase).

Clinical algorithms for the prevention of variceal bleeding and rebleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis

Portal hypertension (PH), a common complication of liver cirrhosis, results in development of esophageal varices. When esophageal varices rupture, they cause significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding with mortality rates up to 20% despite state-of-the-art treatment. Thus, prophylactic measures are of utmost importance to improve outcomes of patients with PH. Several high-quality studies have demonstrated that non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) are effective for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. In secondary prophylaxis, a combination of NSBB + EBL should be routinely used. Once esophageal varices develop and variceal bleeding occurs, standardized treatment algorithms should be followed to minimize bleeding-associated mortality. Special attention should be paid to avoidance of overtransfusion, early initiation of vasoconstrictive therapy, prophylactic antibiotics and early endoscopic therapy. Pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt should be used in all Child C10-C13 patients experiencing variceal bleeding, and potentially in Child B patients with active bleeding at endoscopy. The use of carvedilol, safety of NSBBs in advanced cirrhosis (i.e. with refractory ascites) and assessment of hepatic venous pressure gradient response to NSBB is discussed. In the present review, we give an overview on the rationale behind the latest guidelines and summarize key papers that have led to significant advances in the field.

Prevention of Variceal Bleeding and Rebleeding by Nonselective Beta-Blockers: A Tailored Approach

Nonselective beta-blockers represent the mainstay of medical therapy in the prophylaxis of variceal bleeding and rebleeding in patients with portal hypertension. Their efficacy has been demonstrated by numerous trials; however, there exist safety concerns in advanced disease, such as in patients with refractory ascites. Importantly, nonselective beta-blockers also exert nonhemodynamic beneficial effects that may contribute to a prolonged decompensation-free survival, as recently shown in the PREDESCI trial. This review summarizes the current evidence on nonselective beta-blocker therapy and proposes a tailored, patient-centered approach for the use of nonselective beta-blockers in patients with portal hypertension.

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding in people with oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years. There are several different treatments to prevent bleeding, including: beta-blockers, endoscopic sclerotherapy, and variceal band ligation. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers to December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previous bleeding from oesophageal varices and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation or previously received prophylactic treatment for oesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 randomised clinical trials (6653 participants) in the review. Sixty trials (6212 participants) provided data for one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those at high risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices. The follow-up in the trials that reported outcomes ranged from 6 months to 60 months. All but one of the trials were at high risk of bias. The interventions compared included beta-blockers, no active intervention, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates, nitrates, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, and portocaval shunt. Overall, 21.2% of participants who received non-selective beta-blockers ('beta-blockers') - the reference treatment (chosen because this was the most common treatment compared in the trials) - died during 8-month to 60-month follow-up. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates all had lower mortality versus no active intervention (beta-blockers: HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.67; direct comparison HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.42 to 0.83; 10 trials, 1200 participants; variceal band ligation: HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.74; direct comparison HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.12 to 2.14; 3 trials, 355 participants; sclerotherapy: HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.85; direct comparison HR 0.61, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.90; 18 trials, 1666 participants; beta-blockers plus nitrates: HR 0.41, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.85; no direct comparison). No trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation had a higher number of serious adverse events (number of events) than beta-blockers (rate ratio 10.49, 95% CrI 2.83 to 60.64; 1 trial, 168 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers plus nitrates had a higher number of 'any adverse events (number of participants)' than beta-blockers alone (OR 3.41, 95% CrI 1.11 to 11.28; 1 trial, 57 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, adverse events (number of events) were higher in sclerotherapy than in beta-blockers (rate ratio 2.49, 95% CrI 1.53 to 4.22; direct comparison rate ratio 2.47, 95% CrI 1.27 to 5.06; 2 trials, 90 participants), and in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.08 to 2.76; 1 trial, 140 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was lower in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.04 to 0.71; 1 trial, 173 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was higher in nitrates than beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 6.40, 95% CrI 1.58 to 47.42; 1 trial, 52 participants). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates may decrease mortality compared to no intervention in people with high-risk oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis and no previous history of bleeding. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in a higher number of serious adverse events than beta-blockers. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of beta-blockers versus variceal band ligation on variceal bleeding. The evidence also indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in most of the remaining comparisons.

Carvedilol is associated with improved survival in patients with cirrhosis: a long-term follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Primary prophylaxis of variceal haemorrhage with non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) or variceal band ligation (VBL) is now standard of care in patients with cirrhosis with portal hypertension. NSBB, and particularly carvedilol, may be associated with improved survival.

AIM

To assess mortality in a cohort of patients previously randomised to either carvedilol or VBL.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 152 patients recruited to a multi-centre randomised controlled trial between 7 April 2000 and 24 June 2006 designed to assess the efficacy of VBL versus carvedilol in preventing first variceal bleed. We used electronic records to undertake long-term follow-up (up to 20 years) with the primary outcome of all-cause mortality and secondary end points of liver-related mortality and decompensation events (ascites, encephalopathy, variceal bleeding).

RESULTS

We included 152 patients in analysis with baseline characteristics well matched between the carvedilol (n = 77) and VBL (n = 75) groups. In the intention-to-treat analysis, carvedilol offered a significant survival advantage with median survival of 7.8 years compared to 4.2 years in the VBL group (P = 0.03). This survival benefit was maintained in per-protocol analysis when patients who crossed between treatment arms were excluded (P = 0.02). Transplant-free survival, liver-related mortality and decompensation events were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that carvedilol offers a significant survival benefit for patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. The difference in all-cause and liver-related mortality suggests that this survival benefit may not be entirely liver-related. Prospective, studies are required to confirm these important findings.

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.

Beta-blockers in cirrhosis: Evidence-based indications and limitations

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are the mainstay of treatment for portal hypertension in the setting of liver cirrhosis. Randomised controlled trials demonstrated their efficacy in preventing initial variceal bleeding and subsequent rebleeding. Recent evidence indicates that NSBBs could prevent liver decompensation in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Despite solid data favouring NSBB use in cirrhosis, some studies have highlighted relevant safety issues in patients with end-stage liver disease, particularly with refractory ascites and infection. This review summarises the evidence supporting current recommendations and restrictions of NSBB use in patients with cirrhosis.

Hepatitis C eradication with direct-acting anti-virals reduces the risk of variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

The real-world, long-term benefits of sustained virologic response (SVR) on the risk of variceal bleeding remain unclear.

AIM

To assess the association between DAA-induced SVR and post-treatment variceal bleeding METHODS: We identified patients who initiated DAA-only anti-viral treatments in the United States Veterans Affairs healthcare system from 2013 to 2015. We followed patients until 1 January 2019 for the development of gastro-oesophageal variceal bleeding defined by diagnostic codes. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to assess the association between SVR and development of variceal bleeding, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Among 33 582 DAA-treated patients, 549 (1.6%) developed variceal bleeding after treatment (mean follow-up 3.1 years). Compared to no SVR, SVR was associated with a significantly lower incidence of variceal bleeding among all patients (0.46 vs 1.26 per 100 patient-years, adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 0.66, 95% CI 0.52-0.83), among patients with pre-treatment cirrhosis (1.55 vs 2.96 per 100 patient-years, AHR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.93) and among patients without pre-treatment cirrhosis (0.07 vs 0.29 per 100 patient-years, AHR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17-0.65). The risk of variceal bleeding after treatment was lower in those who achieved SVR vs no SVR among patients who had non-bleeding varices (3.5 vs 4.9 per 100 patient-years) or bleeding varices (12.9 vs 16.4 per 100 patient-years) diagnosed before treatment, but these differences were not statistically significant in adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

DAA-induced SVR is independently associated with a lower risk of variceal bleeding during long-term follow-up in patients with and without pre-treatment cirrhosis. These findings demonstrate an important real-world benefit of DAA treatment.

Use of Nonselective β-Blockers in Patients With End-Stage Liver Disease and Select Complications

Objective: To review the literature and recommendations for nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) in the setting of variceal bleeding prophylaxis and decompensated liver disease. Data Sources: Literature search of MEDLINE was performed (1988 to October 2019) using the following search terms: cirrhosis, advanced cirrhosis, β-blocker, decompensation, prophylaxis. Abstracts, peer-reviewed publications, clinical practice guidelines, and product monographs were reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Relevant English language studies and those conducted in humans were considered for analysis and inclusion. Data Synthesis: Evidence that suggests that NSBBs are harmful in advanced cirrhosis is overshadowed by confounding variables and small patient populations. The majority of the available evidence suggests neutral or beneficial effects on mortality with continuation of NSBBs despite liver disease progression. Based on the available literature, guidelines, and expert consensuses, NSBBs can be considered within this patient population and may have a positive impact on the majority of these patients. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review summarizes current place in therapy for NSBBs in the setting of cirrhosis and variceal bleeding prophylaxis. It also includes a discussion of the literature for use of NSBBs within the setting of different acute decompensations in which the data and recommendations for use are less clear. Conclusions: Recent evidence shows neutral or positive results for NSBB use in particular decompensation subgroups, which suggests that NSBBs can be used cautiously with close monitoring in patients with advanced cirrhosis. Questions still remain regarding optimal agent and dose and whether agents can be safely restarted after an acute decompensation episode.

Pharmacologic Management of Portal Hypertension

Terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide are recommended as pharmacologic treatment of acute variceal hemorrhage. Nonselective β-blockers decrease the risk of variceal hemorrhage and hepatic decompensation, particularly in those 30% to 40% of patients with good hemodynamic response. Carvedilol, statins, and anticoagulants are promising agents in the management of portal hypertension. Recent advances in the pharmacologic treatment of portal hypertension have mainly focused on modifying an increased intrahepatic resistance through nitric oxide and/or modulation of vasoactive substances. Several novel pharmacologic agents for portal hypertension are being evaluated in humans.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INVASIVE PROCEDURES IN PATIENTS WITH DISEASES OF THE LIVER AND BILIARY TRACT: REPORT OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF HEPATOLOGY (SBH), BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY (SOBED) AND BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY (SOBRICE)

Liver and biliary tract diseases are common causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Invasive procedures are usually performed in those patients with hepatobiliary diseases for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Defining proper indications and restraints of commonly used techniques is crucial for proper patient selection, maximizing positive results and limiting complications. In 2018, the Brazilian Society of Hepato-logy (SBH) in cooperation with the Brazilian Society of Interventional Radiology and Endovascular surgery (SOBRICE) and the Brazilian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SOBED) sponsored a joint single-topic meeting on invasive procedures in patients with hepatobiliary diseases. This paper summarizes the proceedings of the aforementioned meeting. It is intended to guide clinicians, gastroenterologists, hepatologists, radiologists, and endoscopists for the proper use of invasive procedures for management of patients with hepatobiliary diseases.

A new algorithm for predicting long-term survival in chronic hepatitis B patients with variceal bleeding after endoscopic therapy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A predictive algorithm for survival is urgently needed in clinical practice. This study aimed to establish an algorithm to predict long-term survival in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with hepatic cirrhosis and variceal bleeding after endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study in which 603 patients who followed-up for three years were randomly assigned into a training cohort and a validation cohort in a 2:1 ratio. A new score model was devised based on the result of Cox regression analysis in the training cohort, and was verified in the validation cohort.

RESULTS

A prediction score model composed of age, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase and MELD score was established. The score ranged from 0 to 11. Areas under the ROC curve of the score were 0.821 (p < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.769-0.873) and 0.827 (p < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.753-0.900) in the training cohort and validation cohort, respectively. Scores 0-4 and 5-11 identified patients as low-risk and high-risk categories, respectively. The cumulative 3-year survival rate was significantly higher in the low-risk group than in the high-risk group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The new score model can be used to predict long-term survival in CHB patients with hepatic cirrhosis and variceal bleeding after endoscopic therapy.

Carvedilol vs endoscopic variceal ligation for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Variceal hemorrhage is associated with high mortality and is the cause of death for 20–30% of patients with cirrhosis. Nonselective β blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) are recommended for primary prevention of variceal bleeding in patients with medium to large esophageal varices. Meanwhile, combination of EVL and NSBBs is the recommended approach for the secondary prevention. Carvedilol has greater efficacy than other NSBBs as it decreases intrahepatic resistance. We hypothesized that there was no difference between carvedilol and EVL intervention for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis patients.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of carvedilol compared to EVL for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients

METHODS

We searched relevant literatures in major journal databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) from March to August 2018. Patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, regardless of aetiology and severity, with or without a history of variceal bleeding, and aged ≥ 18 years old were included in this review. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of carvedilol and that of EVL for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding and mortality in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension were considered, irrespective of publication status, year of publication, and language.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included. In four trials assessing the primary prevention, no significant difference was found on the events of variceal bleeding (RR: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.37-1.49), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.10, 95%CI: 0.76-1.58), and bleeding-related mortality (RR: 1.02, 95%CI: 0.34-3.10) in patients who were treated with carvedilol compared to EVL. In three trials assessing secondary prevention, there was no difference between two interventions for the incidence of rebleeding (RR: 1.10, 95%CI: 0.75-1.61). The fixed-effect model showed that, compared to EVL, carvedilol decreased all-cause mortality by 49% (RR: 0.51, 95%CI: 0.33-0.79), with little or no evidence of heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol had similar efficacy to EVL in preventing the first variceal bleeding in cirrhosis patients with esophageal varices. It was superior to EVL alone for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in regard to all-cause mortality reduction.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of carvedilol versus variceal band ligation in primary prevention of variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis (CALIBRE trial)

INTRODUCTION

Liver cirrhosis is the fifth largest cause of adult deaths, and a major complication, variceal bleeding is associated with a 1-year mortality of 40%. There is uncertainty on the first-line therapy for prevention of variceal bleeding owing to a lack of adequately powered trials comparing non-selective beta blockers, in particular carvedilol, with variceal band ligation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

CALIBRE is a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled, open-label trial with an internal pilot. The two interventions are carvedilol 12.5 mg od or variceal band ligation (VBL). Patients with liver cirrhosis and medium to large oesophageal varices that have never bled are eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome is any variceal bleeding within 1 year of randomisation. Secondary endpoints include time to variceal bleed, mortality, transplant-free survival, adverse events, complications of cirrhosis, health-related quality of life, use of healthcare resources, patient preference and use of alternative or crossover therapies. The sample size is 2630 patients over a 4-year recruitment period, across 66 hospitals in the UK.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by a National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (REC) (reference number 18/NE/0296). The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. Participants will be informed via a link to a preview of the publication. A lay summary will also be provided via email or posted to participants prior to publication (ISRCTN reference number: 73887615).

Comparison of Therapies for Primary Prevention of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of different approaches in primary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding and overall survival in patients with cirrhosis with large varices. Thirty-two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 3,362 adults with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices and no prior history of bleeding, with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up, were included. Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB), isosorbide-mononitrate (ISMN), carvedilol, and variceal band ligation (VBL), alone or in combination, were compared with each other or placebo. Primary outcomes were reduction of all-cause mortality and prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding. Random-effects NMA was performed and summary estimates were expressed as odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals (OR; CI). Quality of evidence was critically appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Moderate quality evidence supports NSBB monotherapy (0.70; 0.49-1.00) or in combination with VBL (0.49; 0.23-1.02) or ISMN (0.44; 0.21-0.93) for decreasing mortality in patients with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices and no prior history of bleeding. Moderate-quality evidence supports carvedilol (0.21; 0.08-0.56) and VBL monotherapy (0.33; 0.19-0.55) or in combination with NSBB (0.34; 0.14-0.86), and low-quality evidence supports NSBB monotherapy (0.64; 0.38-1.07) for primary prevention of variceal bleeding. VBL carries a higher risk of serious adverse events compared with NSBB. Conclusion: NSBB monotherapy may decrease all-cause mortality and the risk of first variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices. Additionally, NSBB carries a lower risk of serious complications compared with VBL. Therefore, NSBB may be the preferred initial approach for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding.

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.

Non-invasive response prediction in prophylactic carvedilol therapy for cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are the mainstay of primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis. We investigated whether non-invasive markers of portal hypertension correlate with hemodynamic responses to NSBBs in cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, 106 cirrhotic patients with high-risk esophageal varices in the derivation cohort received carvedilol prophylaxis, and completed paired measurements of hepatic venous pressure gradient, liver stiffness (LS), and spleen stiffness (SS) at the beginning and end of dose titration. LS and SS were measured using acoustic radiation force impulse imaging. A prediction model for hemodynamic response was derived, and subject to an external validation in the validation cohort (63 patients).

RESULTS

Hemodynamic response occurred in 59 patients (55.7%) in the derivation cohort, and in 33 patients (52.4%) in the validation cohort, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified that ΔSS was the only significant predictor of hemodynamic response (odds ratio 0.039; 95% confidence interval 0.008-0.135; p <0.0001). The response prediction model (ModelΔSS = 0.0490-2.8345 × ΔSS; score = (exp[ModelΔSS])/(1 + exp[ModelΔSS]) showed good predictive performance (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 0.803) using 0.530 as the threshold value. The predictive performance of the ModelΔSS in the validation set improved using the same threshold value (AUC = 0.848).

CONCLUSION

A new model based on dynamic changes in SS exhibited good performance in predicting hemodynamic response to NSBB prophylaxis in patients with high-risk esophageal varices.

LAY SUMMARY

Non-selective beta-blockers are the mainstay of primary prophylaxis to prevent variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis and high-risk esophageal varices. This prospective study showed that a prediction model based on changes in spleen stiffness before vs. after dose titration might be a non-invasive marker for response to prophylactic non-selective beta-blocker (carvedilol) therapy in patients with cirrhosis and high-risk esophageal varices. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01943318.

Carvedilol vs endoscopic band ligation for the prevention of variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Variceal hemorrhage is the primary driver of mortality in patients with portal hypertension. Recent guidelines recommended that patients with esophageal varices should receive endoscopic band ligation (EBL) or carvedilol as prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. Several clinical trials have compared carvedilol use with EBL intervention, yielding controversial results. The present study aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the benefits and harms of carvedilol vs EBL for the prevention of variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Studies were searched on Pubmed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane library databases up to August 2018. Main outcomes in selected studies (variceal bleeding, all-cause deaths, bleeding-related deaths, and adverse events) were pooled into a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were identified in this meta-analysis, including a total of 703 patients. A total of 359 patients were randomized to carvedilol group and 354 were randomized to EBL group. No significant difference in variceal bleeding was observed between carvedilol use and EBL groups (relative ratio [RR] =0.86, 95% CI =0.60-1.23, I ²=11%), without publication bias. No significant difference was found neither for all-cause deaths (RR =0.82, 95% CI =0.44-1.53, I ²=66%) nor for bleeding-related deaths (RR =0.85, 95% CI =0.39-1.87, I ²=42%) in four included studies. Moreover, no reduced trend was observed toward adverse events in carvedilol group compared with that in EBL group (RR =1.32, 95% CI =0.75-2.31, I ²=81%).

CONCLUSION

There is no significant difference between carvedilol use and EBL intervention for the prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patient with esophageal varices. Large-scale clinical trials are further needed to make a confirmed conclusion.

Long-term outcome of endoscopic variceal band ligation of esophageal varices in patients with chronic liver disease

BACKGROUND

There are scanty data on the long-term outcome of endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVL) for esophageal varices.

METHODS

Adult patients suffering from a chronic liver disease (CLD) undergoing EVL of esophageal varices of grade 2 and above between January 2006 and December 2015 were followed up for the recurrence of varices, worsening of portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG), rebleeding, and mortality. EVL was done as primary prophylaxis of bleeding in 72 and as secondary prophylaxis in 175 patients. All received propranolol after EVL if there was no contraindication.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-seven CLD patients (mean age 51.83 ± 11.28 years, 179 males) underwent 306 EVL sessions. The most common etiology was alcohol (53%). Sixty-eight percent of patients had grade 3 esophageal varices 76.5% had PHG. There was no immediate post-EVL bleeding or 30-day mortality. Variceal obliteration was achieved in 100% with 19% recurrence within a mean period of 53.74 ± 27.2 months. PHG worsened in 49.7%. Overall, rebleeding occurred in 13.8%, 4.3% from recurrent varices. There was no difference in variceal recurrence (16.7% vs. 20%) and incidence of rebleeding (9.7% vs. 13.7%) between patients undergoing EVL for primary and secondary prophylaxis. Cumulative rebleeding rates after 1, 5, and 9 years were 1.6%, 9.2%, and 11.4%, respectively. The overall mortality was 85%, mostly from progressive CLD, and only 8.6% was due to rebleeding. On subgroup analysis, the factors significantly associated with rebleeding was Child-Pugh class C and worsened PHG those with mortality were alcohol and Child-Pugh class C.

CONCLUSION

EVL is effective in the long-term for both primary and secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding.

Update on the management of gastrointestinal varices

Cirrhosis of liver is a major problem in the western world. Portal hypertension is a complication of cirrhosis and can lead to a myriad of pathology of which include the development of porto-systemic collaterals. Gastrointestinal varices are dilated submucosal veins, which often develop at sites near the formation of gastroesophageal collateral circulation. The incidence of varices is on the rise due to alcohol and obesity. The most significant complication of portal hypertension is life-threatening bleeding from gastrointestinal varices, which is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. In addition, this can cause a significant burden on the health care facility. Gastrointestinal varices can happen in esophagus, stomach or ectopic varices. There has been considerable progress made in the understanding of the natural history, pathophysiology and etiology of portal hypertension. Despite the development of endoscopic and medical treatments, early mortality due to variceal bleeding remains high due to significant illness of the patient. Recurrent variceal bleed is common and in some cases, there is refractory variceal bleed. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the management of gastrointestinal varices with an emphasis on endoscopic interventions, strategies to handle refractory variceal bleed and newer endoscopic treatment modalities. Early treatment and improved endoscopic techniques can help in improving morbidity and mortality.

Lowering hepatic venous pressure agent carvedilol versus variceal banding ligation for clinical outcomes of cirrhotic portal hypertension

OBJECTIVE

Carvedilol is nonselective beta-blocker with a mild anti-alpha-1-adrenergic effect. Several studies proposed improved hemodynamic effects of carvedilol compared with propanolol. Our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials comparing carvedilol with variceal banding ligation (VBL).

METHODS

Studies were searched on online databases MEDLINE, EMBASE(Ovid), the Cochrane Library, Chinese Wanfang Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure between January 2000 and May 2018. Incidence of bleeding and mortality were main outcome measures. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to ensure the robustness of pooled estimates.

RESULTS

Ten randomized control trials including 1,269 cirrhotic patients were chosen. Compared with VBL, carvedilol showed similar preventive efficacy of risk ratios (RRs) in variceal bleeding, and bleeding-related mortality over different follow-up periods from 6 months to 24 months. Also, significant differences between carvedilol and VBL in overall mortality and other causes of mortality were failed to be found. Carvedilol achieved a lower incidence of portal hypertension gastropathy in both 6 months (RR=0.49, 95% CI: 0.38-0.64, P<0.00001) and 12 months (RR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.26-0.47, P<0.00001). Two trials compared combination of carvedilol and VBL with VBL alone; however, the results failed to find an improved preventive efficacy of bleeding (RR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.15-3.30, P=0.67).

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol is equivalent to invasive VBL for variceal bleeding prevention. It can be well tolerated and may be of benefit to portal hypertension gastropathy. However, available data during 24 months follow-up did not support a potential advantage of carvedilol for prognosis as a lowering hepatic venous pressure agent.

Low molecular weight heparin does not increase bleeding and mortality post-endoscopic variceal band ligation in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Anticoagulants are commonly indicated in cirrhotic patients due to high rate of (pro)thrombotic conditions. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is safe in patients with esophageal varices. However, the safety of LMWH is unknown in patients undergoing prophylactic endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL). To define the 4-week risk of bleeding and death after prophylactic EVL in cirrhotic patients continuously treated with LMWH.

METHODS

All EVLs performed at a tertiary Italian Center from 2009 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients treated with LMWH were classified as on-LMWH; the remaining as no-LMWH. Endoscopic characteristics at first and index EVL (that preceding an endoscopy either showing a bleeding episode or the absence of further treatable varices) and clinical events within 4 weeks from the procedures were recorded.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Five hundred fifty-three EVLs were performed in 265 patients (in 215 as a primary prophylaxis): 169 EVLs in 80 on-LMWH and 384 in 185 no-LMWH (4.9 ± 1.1 vs 4.8 ± 1.0 bands/session, respectively; P = .796). Six patients bled (2.2%) without between-groups difference (3.8% on-LMWH vs 1.6% no-LMWH, Log-rank P = .291). Large varices with red marks (100% vs 51.4%, P = .032), number of bands (5.6 ± 0.5 vs 4.6 ± 1.2, P = .004), underlying portal vein thrombosis (66.7% vs 23.6%, P = .033), and creatinine (2.2 ± 2.7 vs 1.0 ± 0.8 mg/dL, P = .001) at index EVL were significantly different between bleeders and non-bleeders. Six patients died within 4-week from index EVL, without between-groups difference (2.5% on-LMWH vs 2.2% no-LMWH, Log-rank P = .863). LMWH does not increase the risk of post-procedural bleeding and does not affect survival of cirrhotic patients undergoing prophylactic EVL.

Nonselective Beta-Blockers Do Not Affect Survival in Cirrhotic Patients with Ascites

BACKGROUND

The role of nonselective beta-blockers in cirrhotic patients with ascites has been recently questioned; however, definitive evidence in this regard is still lacking.

AIMS

To analyze published data on the influence of nonselective beta-blockers as compared to control group on survival of cirrhotic patients with ascites.

METHODS

Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed. Hazard ratios from Kaplan-Meier curves were extracted in order to perform an unbiased comparison of survival estimates. Secondary outcomes were mortality in patients with refractory ascites, pooled rate of nonselective beta-blockers interruption, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and hepato-renal syndrome incidence.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies with 8279 patients were included. Overall survival was comparable between the two groups (hazard ratio = 0.86, 0.71-1.03, p = 0.11). Study design resulted as the main source of heterogeneity in sensitivity analysis and meta-regression. Mortality in refractory ascites patients was similar in the two groups (odds ratio = 0.90, 0.45-1.79; p = 0.76). No difference in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (odds ratio = 0.78, 0.47-1.29, p = 0.33) and hepato-renal syndrome incidence (odds ratio = 1.22, 0.48-3.09; p = 0.67) was observed. Pooled rate of nonselective beta-blockers interruption was 18.6% (5.2-32.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, nonselective beta-blockers should not be routinely withheld in patients with cirrhosis and ascites, even if refractory.

Carvedilol for reducing portal pressure in primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding: a dose-response study

BACKGROUND

Sequential measurements of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) are used to assess the haemodynamic response to nonselective betablockers (NSBBs) in patients with portal hypertension.

AIMS

To assess the rates of HVPG response to different doses of carvedilol.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with cirrhosis undergoing HVPG-guided carvedilol therapy for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding between 08/2010 and 05/2015 were retrospectively included. After baseline HVPG measurement, carvedilol 6.25 mg/d was administered and HVPG response (HVPG-decrease ≥20% or to ≤12 mm Hg) was assessed after 3-4 weeks. In case of nonresponse, carvedilol dose was increased to 12.5 mg/d and a third HVPG-measurement was performed after 3-4 weeks. We also assessed HVPG-response rates according to the Baveno VI consensus (HVPG decrease ≥10% or to ≤12 mm Hg) and changes in systolic arterial pressure (SAP).

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients (Child A, 37%; B, 35%; C, 28%) were included. 28 (39%) patients achieved a HVPG-decrease ≥ 20% with carvedilol 6.25 mg/d and another 10 (14%) with carvedilol 12.5 mg/d. Forty (56%) patients had a HVPG decrease ≥10% with carvedilol 6.25 mg/d and 24 (33%) with carvedilol 12.5 mg/d. Thus, in total, a HVPG-response of ≥20% and ≥10% and was achieved in 38 (53%) and 55 (76%) and of patients respectively. Notably, 6 patients (n = 4 with ascites) did not tolerate an increase to 12.5 mg/d due to hypotension/bradycardia. However, none of the other patients had a SAP < 90 mm Hg at the final HVPG measurement.

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol 12.5 mg/d was more effective than 6.25 mg/d in decreasing HVPG in primary prophylaxis. A total of 76% of patients achieved a HVPG-response of ≥ 10% to carvedilol 12.5 mg/d, however, arterial hypotension might occur, especially in patients with ascites.

Betablockers do not increase efficacy of band ligation in primary prophylaxis but they improve survival in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is used for primary (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) of variceal bleeding. Current guidelines recommend combined use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and EBL for SP, while in PP either NSBB or EBL should be used.

AIM

To assess (re-)bleeding rates and mortality in cirrhotic patients receiving EBL for PP or SP for variceal bleeding.

METHODS

(Re-)bleeding rates and mortality were retrospectively assessed with and without concomitant NSBB therapy after first EBL in PP and SP.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and sixty-six patients with oesophageal varices underwent EBL from 01/2005 to 06/2015. Among the 284 patients undergoing EBL for PP, n = 101 (35.6%) received EBL only, while n = 180 (63.4%) received EBL + NSBBs. In 482 patients on SP, n = 163 (33.8%) received EBL only, while n = 299 (62%) received EBL + NSBBs. In PP, concomitant NSBB therapy neither decreased bleeding rates (log-rank: P = 0.353) nor mortality (log-rank: P = 0.497) as compared to EBL alone. In SP, similar re-bleeding rates were documented in EBL + NSBB vs EBL alone (log-rank: P = 0.247). However, EBL + NSBB resulted in a significantly lower mortality rate (log-rank: P<0.001). A decreased risk of death with EBL + NSBB in SP (hazard ratio, HR: 0.50; P<0.001) but not of rebleeding, transplantation or further decompensation was confirmed by competing risk analysis. Overall NSBB intake reduced 6-months mortality (HR: 0.53, P = 0.008) in SP, which was most pronounced in patients without severe/refractory ascites (HR: 0.37; P = 0.001) but not observed in patients with severe/refractory ascites (HR: 0.80; P = 0.567).

CONCLUSIONS

EBL alone seems sufficient for PP of variceal bleeding. In SP, the addition of NSBB to EBL was associated with an improved survival within the first 6 months after EBL.

Prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices

Bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is a serious complication in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Although there has been significance improvement in the prognosis of variceal bleeding with advancement in diagnostic and therapeutic modalities for its management, mortality rate still remains high. Therefore, appropriate prevention and rapid, effective management of bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is very important. Recently, various studies about management of gastoesophageal varices, including prevention of development and aggravation of varices, prevention of first variceal bleeding, management of acute variceal bleeding, and prevention of variceal rebleeding, have been published. The present article reviews published articles and practice guidelines to present the most optimal management of patients with gastroesophageal varices.

Pharmacologic prevention of variceal bleeding and rebleeding

BACKGROUND

Variceal bleeding is a major complication of portal hypertension, which is associated with significant mortality. Moreover, patients surviving a variceal bleeding episode have very high risk of rebleeding, which is associated with mortality as high as that of the first bleed. Because of this, prevention of bleeding from gastroesophageal varices has been one of the main therapeutic goals since the advent of the first effective therapies for portal hypertension.

AIM

This review deals with the present day state-of-the-art pharmacological prevention of variceal bleeding in primary and secondary prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Pharmacological therapy aims to decrease portal pressure (PP) by acting on the pathophysiological mechanisms of portal hypertension such as increased hepatic vascular tone and splanchnic vasodilatation. Propranolol and nadolol block the beta-1 in the heart and the peripheral beta-2 adrenergic receptors. Beta-1 blockade of cardiac receptors reduces heart rate and cardiac output and subsequently decreases flow into splanchnic circulation. Beta-2 blockade leads to unopposed alpha-1 adrenergic activity that causes splanchnic vasoconstriction and reduction of portal inflow. Both effects contribute to reduction in PP. Carvedilol is more powerful in reducing hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) than traditional nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and achieves good hemodynamic response in nearly 75 % of cases. Simvastatin and atorvastatin improve endothelial dysfunction mainly by enhancing endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) expression and phosphorylation and NO production. In addition, statins deactivate hepatic stellate cells and ameliorate hepatic fibrogenesis. These effects cause a decrease in HVPG and improve liver microcirculation and hepatocyte perfusion in patients with cirrhosis. In addition, several promising drugs under development may change the management of portal hypertension in the coming years.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a background on the most important aspects of the treatment of portal hypertension in patients with compensated and decompensated liver cirrhosis. However, despite the great improvement in the prevention of variceal bleeding over the last years, further therapeutic options are needed.