Randomized trials of endoscopic therapy and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus portacaval shunt for emergency and elective treatment of bleeding gastric varices in cirrhosis

Comparison of the management of gastric variceal bleeding techniques

Background and Aim

Managing gastric variceal (GV) hemorrhage is more complicated than managing esophageal variceal (EV) bleeding, resulting in significantly higher morbidity and mortality. We aim to compare the outcomes of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), transhepatic intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) in the management of GV bleeding.

Methods

We utilized the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from January 2016 to December 2019 to include adult patients with GV hemorrhage.

Results

Our study identified 7160 hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of GV hemorrhage who underwent the interventions of interest. EVL was performed in 69.83%, TIPS in 8.72%, and BRTO in 4.88%. Patients with liver cirrhosis had a higher frequency of undergoing BRTO (68.6%), followed by TIPS (64.0%) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) + TIPS (63.7%) (P < 0.001). Patients with cirrhosis secondary to alcoholism had a higher prevalence of TIPS (62.4%), followed by EGD + TIPS (69.4%) and BRTO (52.9%) (P < 0.001). Overall, the inpatient mortality was 6.5%. Overall inpatient mortality was highest in the TIPS cohort (8.8%), followed by BRTO (7.1%), EGD + TIPS (6.5%), EVL (6.2%), and EGD + BRTO (2.8%) (P < 0.001); However, the Kaplan-Meier graph showed endoscopy with BRTO had the most favorable 30-day survival, trailed by TIPS alone and BRTO alone.

Conclusion

EVL remains a prominent therapeutic strategy. Remarkably, the combination of endoscopy with BRTO shows promising 30-day survival outcomes. Considering these observations, although EVL holds its primacy, it is essential to further explore the potential benefits of combined therapies in larger studies to ascertain the best treatment strategies.

The reproducibility of interventional radiology randomized controlled trials and external validation of a classification system

PURPOSE

The fragility index (FI) measures the robustness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It complements the P value by taking into account the number of outcome events. In this study, the authors measured the FI for major interventional radiology RCTs.

METHODS

Interventional radiology RCTs published between January 2010 and December 2022 relating to trans-jugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, trans-arterial chemoembolization, needle biopsy, angiography, angioplasty, thrombolysis, and nephrostomy tube insertion were analyzed to measure the FI and robustness of the studies.

RESULTS

A total of 34 RCTs were included. The median FI of those studies was 4.5 (range 1-68). Seven trials (20.6%) had a number of patients lost to follow-up that was higher than their FI, and 15 (44.1%) had a FI of 1-3.

CONCLUSION

The median FI, and hence the reproducibility of interventional radiology RCTs, is low compared to other medical fields, with some having a FI of 1, which should be interrupted cautiously.

Prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma receiving molecularly targeted therapy: a randomized pilot study of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus endoscopic plus β-blocker

BACKGROUND

Although transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is recommended for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding if standard therapy fails and for patients with high risk of recurrent bleeding, no guidelines for the treatment of symptomatic portal hypertension in HCC patients are available. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of TIPS with endoscopic + β-blocker for prevention of the rebleeding in such patients.

METHODS

106 consecutive advanced HCC patients receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) who had been treated with vasoactive drugs plus endoscopic therapy for variceal bleeding were randomly assigned to receive either TIPS (n = 52) or endoscopic + β-blocker therapy (n = 54) for the prevention of rebleeding. The primary endpoint was variceal rebleeding after randomization.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 16 months, rebleeding occurred in 14 patients in the endoscopic + β-blocker group and 3 patients in the TIPS group (p < 0.001). Forty-nine patients died (38 in endoscopic + β-blocker group and 11 in TIPS group, p < 0.001). The 6-, 12-, and 18-month overall survival rates were 95, 81, and 73% for TIPS group and 35, 21, and 15% for endoscopic + β-blocker group, respectively (p < 0.001). Eight patients in endoscopic + β-blocker group received TIPS as rescue therapy, but two died. TKIs was discontinued in 32 patients, including 24 in the endoscopic + β-blocker group and 8 in the TIPS group (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the two groups with respect to serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In advanced HCC patients receiving TKIs and presented with variceal bleeding, the use of TIPS was associated with significant reduction in rebleeding, improved a higher adherence to TKIs therapy, and prolonged survival.

Salvage transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in patients with cirrhosis and refractory variceal bleeding: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Background

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) may be used as a salvage treatment in patients with cirrhosis and refractory variceal bleeding.

Aim

To synthesize the available evidence on the efficacy of TIPS in patients with cirrhosis and refractory variceal bleeding.

Methods

Meta‐analysis of trials evaluating TIPS in patients with cirrhosis and refractory variceal bleeding, including subgroup analysis to assess the impact of recent changes in the management of variceal bleeding (i.e., the use of Polytetrafluoroethylene‐covered TIPS and the availability of pre‐emptive TIPS as a first‐line treatment for acute variceal bleeding).

Results

Twenty‐three studies with 1430 patients were included. The pooled estimate rates were 0.33 (95% CI = 0.29–0.37) for death at 1 month–6 weeks, 0.46 (95% CI = 0.40–0.52) for death at 1 year, and 0.09 (95% CI = 0.06–0.11) for death due to rebleeding in the follow‐up. The pooled estimate rates for death at 1 month or 6 weeks were similar in subgroup analyses including studies that did not use covered TIPS or that did not include patients after the pre‐emptive TIPS area compared to the ones that did (pooled estimate rate 0.33 [95% CI = 0.28–0.38] and 0.32 [95% CI = 0.25–0.39], respectively). The pooled estimate rates were 0.16 (95% CI = 0.13–0.18) for rebleeding, 0.25 (95% CI = 0.17–0.36) for occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy, and 0.08 (95% CI = 0.05–0.13) for access to liver transplantation after TIPS insertion.

Conclusions

One third of patients with cirrhosis and refractory variceal bleeding treated with salvage TIPS died within the first 6 weeks. Recent improvements in the management of variceal bleeding did not improve the survival of patients presenting with refractory variceal bleeding.

Managing gastric varices

Gastric varices (GV) are a type of ectopic varix, which is a natural portosystemic shunt occurring in response to an increase in intrahepatic vascular resistance, mostly commonly from portal hypertension. GV are present in up to 20% of patients with portal hypertension. Although oesophageal varices are more common than GV, and oesophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) happens more often than gastric variceal bleeding (GVB), GVB tends to be more severe, to have higher associated hospital costs, length of stay, higher rebleeding rates and have higher mortality. Mortality rates associated with variceal bleeding range from 6% in EVB to 20%-55% in GVB. Risk factors for GV haemorrhage include location, size, severity of liver failure, presence of variceal red spots, and presence of HCC (hepatocellular carcinoma). This manuscript will review endoscopic and non-endoscopic treatment of GV.

Management of Refractory Variceal Bleed in Cirrhosis

Acute variceal bleeding is the major cause of mortality in patients with cirrhosis. The standard medical and endoscopic treatment has reduced the mortality of variceal bleeding from 50% to 10-20%. The refractory variceal bleed is either because of failure to control the bleed or failure of secondary prophylaxis. The patients refractory to standard medical therapy need further interventions. The rescue therapies include balloon tamponade, self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) placement, shunt procedures, including transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO), and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided coiling. In cases where endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) has failed and the variceal bleeding continues, temporary measures like balloon tamponade can be used to achieve hemostasis and as a bridge to definitive measures. SEMS being in use for refractory bleed is preferred over balloon tamponade due to the reduced complication rate. The shunting procedures are highly effective in reducing portal pressure and represent the gold standard for uncontrolled variceal bleeding. The surgical shunts, as well as nonshunt surgeries such as devascularization have become less popular with the increasing use of minimally invasive techniques like TIPS. TIPS have high success rates in controlling refractory variceal bleeding. The mortality rate is greater in high-risk patients undergoing salvage TIPS, and hence, pre-emptive TIPS should be considered in these patients. BRTO is an interventional radiologic procedure used in the management of bleeding gastric and ectopic varices. The availability of gastrorenal or splenorenal shunts is required for the BRTO procedure, which helps to reach and obliterate the cardiofundal varices through the femoral or jugular vein approach. The EUS guided coiling and glue injection have shown promising results, and further randomized controlled trials are required to establish their efficacy for refractory variceal bleeding.

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.

Portosystemic shunts versus endoscopic intervention with or without medical treatment for prevention of rebleeding in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

People with liver cirrhosis who have had one episode of variceal bleeding are at risk for repeated episodes of bleeding. Endoscopic intervention and portosystemic shunts are used to prevent further bleeding, but there is no consensus as to which approach is preferable.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of shunts (surgical shunts (total shunt (TS), distal splenorenal shunt (DSRS), or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)) versus endoscopic intervention (endoscopic sclerotherapy or banding, or both) with or without medical treatment (non-selective beta blockers or nitrates, or both) for prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with liver cirrhosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CHBG Controlled Trials Register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS (Bireme); Science Citation Index - Expanded (Web of Science); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science); as well as conference proceedings and the references of trials identified until 22 June 2020. We contacted study investigators and industry researchers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing shunts versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis who had recovered from a variceal haemorrhage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. When possible, we collected data to allow intention-to-treat analysis. For each outcome, we estimated a meta-analysed estimate of treatment effect across trials (risk ratio for binary outcomes). We used random-effects model meta-analysis as our main analysis and as a means of presenting results. We reported differences in means for continuous outcomes without a meta-analytic estimate due to high variability in their assessment among all trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 27 randomised trials with 1828 participants. Three trials assessed TSs, five assessed DSRSs, and 19 trials assessed TIPSs. The endoscopic intervention was sclerotherapy in 16 trials, band ligation in eight trials, and a combination of band ligation and either sclerotherapy or glue injection in three trials. In eight trials, endoscopy was combined with beta blockers (in one trial plus isosorbide mononitrate). We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all the outcome review results as very low (i.e. the true effects of the results are likely to be substantially different from the results of estimated effects). The very low evidence grading is due to the overall high risk of bias for all trials, and to imprecision and publication bias for some outcomes. Therefore, we are very uncertain whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment have effects on all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.13; 1828 participants; 27 trials), on rebleeding (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50; 1769 participants; 26 trials), on mortality due to rebleeding (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; 1779 participants; 26 trials), and on occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy, both acute (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.92; 1649 participants; 24 trials) and chronic (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.55; 956 participants; 13 trials). No data were available regarding health-related quality of life. Analysing each modality of portosystemic shunts individually (i.e. TS, DSRS, and TIPS) versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment, we are very uncertain if each type of shunt has effect on all-cause mortality: TS, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.13; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.33; 352 participants; 4 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.31; 1312 participants; 19 trial; on rebleeding: TS, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.56; 127 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.65; 330 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.55; 1312 participants; 19 trials; on mortality due to rebleeding: TS, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.74; 352 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.04; 1263 participants; 18 trials; on acute hepatic encephalopathy: TS, RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.92; 115 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.08; 287 participants; 4 trials, TIPS, RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.99; 1247 participants; 18 trials; and chronic hepatic encephalopathy: TS, Fisher's exact test P = 0.11; 69 participants; 1 trial; DSRS, RR 4.87, 95% CI 1.46 to 16.23; 170 participants; 2 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.93 to 3.80; 717 participants; 10 trials. The proportion of participants with shunt occlusion or dysfunction was overall 37% (95% CI 33% to 40%). It was 3% (95% CI 0.8% to 10%) following TS, 7% (95% CI 3% to 13%) following DSRS, and 47.1% (95% CI 43% to 51%) following TIPS. Shunt dysfunction in trials utilising polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents was 17% (95% CI 11% to 24%). Length of inpatient hospital stay and cost were not comparable across trials. Funding was unclear in 16 trials; 11 trials were funded by government, local hospitals, or universities.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis and previous hypertensive portal bleeding have little or no effect on all-cause mortality is very uncertain. Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts may reduce bleeding and mortality due to bleeding while increasing hepatic encephalopathy is also very uncertain. We need properly conducted trials to assess effects of these interventions not only on assessed outcomes, but also on quality of life, costs, and length of hospital stay.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiologic Management of Gastric Varices

Hemorrhage, resulting from gastric varies, can be challenging to treat, given the various precipitating etiologies. A wide variety of treatment options exist for managing the diverse range of the underlying disease processes. While cirrhosis is the most common cause for gastric variceal bleeding, occlusion of the portal or splenic vein in noncirrhotic states results in a markedly different treatment paradigm. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Emergent Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Creation in Acute Variceal Bleeding

Emergent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation is most commonly employed in the setting of acute variceal hemorrhage. Given a propensity for decompensation, these patients often require a multidisciplinary, multimodal approach involving prompt diagnosis, pharmacologic therapy, and endoscopic intervention. While successful in the majority of cases, failure to medically control initial bleeding can prompt interventional radiology consultation for emergent portal decompression via TIPS creation. This article discusses TIPS creation in emergent, acute variceal hemorrhage, reviewing the natural history of gastroesophageal varices, presentation and diagnosis of acute variceal hemorrhage, pharmacologic therapy, endoscopic approaches, patient selection and risk stratification for TIPS, technical considerations for TIPS creation, adjunctive embolotherapy, and the role of salvage TIPS versus early TIPS in acute variceal hemorrhage.

Comparison of the Effects of TIPS versus BRTO on Bleeding Gastric Varices: A Meta-Analysis

Background and Aim. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a threat to patients with gastric varices (GVs). Previous studies have concluded that both transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) and balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) are effective treatments for patients with GV. We aimed to compare the efficiency and outcomes of these two procedures in GV patients through meta-analysis.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched using the keywords: GV, bleeding, TIPS, and BRTO to identify relevant randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The overall survival (OS) rate, imminent haemostasis rate, rebleeding rate, technical success rate, procedure complication rate (hepatic encephalopathy and aggravated ascites), and Child-Pugh score were evaluated. Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies comparing TIPS and BRTO for GV due to portal hypertension were included in our meta-analysis. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed the study quality. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% CIs using random effects models.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a significant difference between TIPS and BRTO in the OS rate (RR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.98); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90); P=0.03) and rebleeding rate (RR, 2.61 (95% CI, 1.75 to 3.90).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, BRTO brought more benefits to patients, with a higher OS rate and lower rebleeding rate. BRTO is a feasible method for GVB.

Varices: Esophageal, Gastric, and Rectal

Gastrointestinal varices are associated with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Variceal hemorrhage is a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality, with esophageal and gastric varices the most common source and rectal varices a much less common cause of severe gastrointestinal bleeding. The goals of managing variceal hemorrhage are control of active bleeding and prevention of rebleeding. This article focuses on reviewing the current management strategies, including optimal medical, endoscopic, and angiographic interventions and their clinical outcomes to achieve these goals. Evidence based discussion is used with current references as much as possible.

Comparision between portosystemic shunts and endoscopic therapy for prevention of variceal re-bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Portosystemic shunts, including surgical portosystemic shunts and transjugular intra-hepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), may have benefit over endoscopic therapy (ET) for treatment of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension; however, whether there being a survival benefit among them remains unclear. This study was to compare the effect of three above-mentioned therapies on the short-term and long-term survival in patient with cirrhosis.

Methods:

Using the terms “variceal hemorrhage or variceal bleeding or variceal re-bleeding” OR “esophageal and gastric varices” OR “portal hypertension” and “liver cirrhosis,” the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and the references of identified trials were searched for human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language with full texts or abstracts (last search June 2017). Risk ratio (RR) estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using random effects model by Review Manager. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for the assessment of the risk of bias.

Results:

Twenty-six publications comprising 28 RCTs were included in this analysis. These studies included a total of 2845 patients: 496 (4 RCTs) underwent either surgical portosystemic shunts or TIPS, 1244 (9 RCTs) underwent either surgical portosystemic shunts or ET, and 1105 (15 RCTs) underwent either TIPS or ET. There was no significant difference in overall mortality and 30-day or 6-week survival among three interventions. Compared with TIPS and ET, separately, surgical portosystemic shunts were both associated with a lower bleeding-related mortality (RR = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.01–0.32; P < 0.001; RR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.06–0.51, P < 0.005) and rate of variceal re-bleeding (RR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.10–0.51, P < 0.001; RR = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.04–0.24, P < 0.001), without a significant difference in the rate of postoperative hepatic encephalopathy (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.25–1.00, P = 0.14; RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.59–2.01, P = 0.78). TIPS showed a trend toward lower variceal re-bleeding (RR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.36–0.58, P < 0.001), but a higher incidence of hepatic encephalopathy than ET (RR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.34–2.36, P < 0.001).

Conclusions:

The overall analysis revealed that there seem to be no short-term and long-term survival advantage, but surgical portosystemic shunts are with the lowest bleeding-related mortality among the three therapies. Surgical portosystemic shunts may be the most effective without an increased risk of hepatic encephalopathy and TIPS is superior to ET but at the cost of a higher incidence of hepatic encephalopathy. However, some of findings should be interpreted with caution due to the lower level of evidence and the existence of significant heterogeneity.

Treatment outcomes of percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for gastric variceal bleeding

There have been few studies comparing percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization (PTVE) and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for the prevention of recurrent gastric variceal bleeding (GVB).Compare the outcomes of these 2 procedures in patients with GVB.A total of 74 cirrhosis patients with GVB who underwent TIPS and modified PTVE were enrolled. The rebleeding and mortality rates, portal vein pressure (PVP) variation, and rates of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) were compared between the 2 groups.A total of 43 PTVE and 31 TIPS patients were enrolled in this study. The difference of rebleeding rate in the 2 groups was not statistically significant (P = .190). The difference of early rebleeding rates and cumulative rebleeding-free rates were all not statistically significant (P = .256, P = .200). The difference of mortality rates in the 2 groups was not statistically significant (χ = 1.206, P = .272). The rate of HE in TIPS group was statistically higher than that in PTVE group (P < .0001).Both PTVE and TIPS were effective for preventing rebleeding of GVs. There were no significant differences in rebleeding and mortality rates. The incidence of HE after TIPS was higher than PTVE.

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.

Surgical portosystemic shunts versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Variceal haemorrhage that is refractory or recurs after pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy requires a portal decompression shunt (either surgical shunts or radiologic shunt, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)). TIPS has become the shunt of choice; however, is it the preferred option? This review assesses evidence for the comparisons of surgical portosystemic shunts versus TIPS for variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of surgical portosystemic shunts versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for treatment of refractory or recurrent variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. We also searched on-line trial registries, reference lists of relevant articles, and proceedings of relevant associations for trials that met the inclusion criteria for this review (date of search 8 March 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing surgical portosystemic shunts versus TIPS for the treatment of refractory or recurrent variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials and extracted data using methodological standards expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias according to domains and risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We found four randomised clinical trials including 496 adult participants diagnosed with variceal haemorrhage due to cirrhotic portal hypertension. The overall risk of bias in all the trials was judged at high risk. All the trials were conducted in the United States of America (USA). Two of the trials randomised participants to selective surgical shunts versus TIPS. The other two trials randomised participants to non-selective surgical shunts versus TIPS. The diagnosis of liver cirrhosis was by clinical and laboratory findings. We are uncertain whether there is a difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days between surgical portosystemic shunts compared with TIPS (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.99; participants = 496; studies = 4). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in encephalopathy between surgical shunts compared with TIPS (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.16; participants = 496; studies = 4). We found evidence suggesting an increase in the occurrence of the following harms in the TIPS group compared with surgical shunts: all-cause mortality at five years (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90; participants = 496; studies = 4); variceal rebleeding (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; participants = 496; studies = 4); reinterventions (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.28; participants = 496; studies = 4); and shunt occlusion (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.51; participants = 496; studies = 4). We could not perform an analysis of health-related quality of life but available evidence appear to suggest improved health-related quality of life in people who received surgical shunt compared with TIPS. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all-cause mortality at 30 days and five years, irreversible shunt occlusion, and encephalopathy to very low because of high risk of bias (due to lack of blinding); inconsistency (due to heterogeneity); imprecision (due to small sample sizes of the individual trials and few events); and publication bias (few trials reporting outcomes). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for variceal rebleeding and reintervention to very low because of high risk of bias (due to lack of blinding); imprecision (due to small sample sizes of the individual trials and few events); and publication bias (few trials reporting outcomes). The small sample sizes and few events did not allow us to produce meaningful trial sequential monitoring boundaries, suggesting plausible random errors in our estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence suggesting that surgical portosystemic shunts may have benefit over TIPS for treatment of refractory or recurrent variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension. Given the very low-certainty of the available evidence and risks of random errors in our analyses, we have very little confidence in our review findings.

Short outcome comparison of elderly patients versus nonelderly patients treated with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt: A propensity score matched cohort study

A transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPSS) has been widely used to treat portal hypertension and its complications. However, no established guidelines mentioned whether age was a risk factor for the treatment of TIPSS.The aim is to determine whether age is a risk factor for poor outcomes following TIPSS.The retrospective cohort study included 134 patients who received TIPSS treatment from 2003 to 2016. The adverse events after the TIPSS treatment were compared after propensity score matching to reduce the effect of selection bias. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to confirm the potential confounders for rebleeding (RB) and ascites after TIPSS therapy.After excluding 10 patients, 124 patients were analyzed. Among them, 37 patients were included in the elderly group. In the propensity score matched cohort (32 pairs), there was no significant difference between the elderly group and the nonelderly group in terms of the event after TIPSS therapy (All P > .05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that hypertension (OR 13.246, 95% CI: [1.29, 136.073]; P = .03) was an independent risk factor for RB. In addition, smoking (OR 4.48, 95% CI: [1.43, 14.033]; P = .01) and preascites (OR 6.7, 95% CI: [2.04, 22.005]; P = .002) were independent risk factors for ascites after TIPSS treatment.Age is not an independent risk factor for poor outcomes following the treatment of TIPSS. Smoking and preascites are independent risk factors for patients' ascites, and hypertension is an independent risk factor for patients' RB after TIPSS therapy.

Management of gastroesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients: current status and future directions

Bleeding from gastroesophageal varices (GEV) is a serious event in cirrhotic patients and can cause death. According to the explosion theory, progressive portal hypertension is the primary mechanism underlying variceal bleeding. There are two approaches for treating GEV: primary prophylaxis to manage bleeding or emergency treatment for bleeding followed by secondary prophylaxis. Treatment methods can be classified into two categories: 1) Those used to decrease portal pressure, such as medication (i.e., nonselective β-blockers), radiological intervention [transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)] or a surgical approach (i.e., portacaval shunt), and 2) Those used to obstruct GEV, such as endoscopy [endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS), and tissue adhesive injection] or radiological intervention [balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO)]. Clinicians should choose a treatment method based on an understanding of its efficacy and limitations. Furthermore, elastography techniques and serum biomarkers are noninvasive methods for estimating portal pressure and may be helpful in managing GEV. The impact of these advances in cirrhosis therapy should be evaluated for their effectiveness in treating GEV.