Alcoholic versus nonalcoholic cirrhosis in a randomized controlled trial of emergency therapy of bleeding varices

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.

Surgical portosystemic shunts in the era of TIPS and liver transplantation are still relevant

BACKGROUND

The surgical portosystemic shunts (PSS) are a time-proven modality for treating portal hypertension. Recently, in the era of liver transplantation and the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS), use of the PSS has declined.

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to evaluate changes in practice, referral patterns, and short- and longterm outcomes of the use of the surgical PSS before and after the introduction of the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 47 patients undergoing PSS between 1996 and 2011 in a single university hospital was conducted.

RESULTS

Subgroups of patients with cirrhosis (53%), Budd-Chiari syndrome (13%), portal vein thrombosis (PVT) (26%), and other pathologies (9%) differed significantly with respect to shunt type, Child-Pugh class, MELD score and perioperative mortality. Perioperative mortality at 60 days was 15%. Five-year survival was 68% (median: 70 months); 5-year shunt patency was 97%. Survival was best in patients with PVT and worst in those with Budd-Chiari syndrome compared to other subgroups. Patency was better in the subgroups of patients with cirrhosis and other pathologies compared with the PVT subgroup. Substantial changes in referral patterns coincided with the adoption of the MELD in 2002, with decreases in the incidence of cirrhosis and variceal bleeding, and increases in non-cirrhotics and hypercoagulopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the spectrum of diseases benefiting from surgical PSS has changed, surgical shunts continue to constitute an important addition to the surgical armamentarium. Selected subgroups with variceal bleeding in well-compensated cirrhosis and PVT benefit from the excellent longterm patency offered by the surgical PSS.

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).