Mesocaval shunt or repeated sclerotherapy: effects on rebleeding and encephalopathy--a randomized trial

Secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated 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 of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for secondary prevention 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 until December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and a previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

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 of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.

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.

A rare case of bleeding duodenal varices from superior mesenteric vein obstruction -treated with transhepatic recanalization and stent placement

Ectopic varices are complex and highly variable entities that are not fully understood. Duodenal varices from pancreatitis have rarely been reported. Ectopic varices have much higher bleeding rates than the more common gastro-esophageal varices, and are associated with higher mortality. The ideal management of this difficult problem is not only to ensure prompt hemostasis, but also address the etiology or hemodynamics of the ectopic varices. We discuss the endovascular management of bleeding duodenal varices, which developed from superior mesenteric vein occlusion, following repeated attacks of pancreatitis. This unusual case was managed by a multidisciplinary collaborative approach between the gastrointestinal service and Interventional radiology. The classification system for ectopic varices and management options has been discussed in some detail. Medium term follow-up (8 months), at the time of this writing, showed that the patient is doing well, without interval hematemesis, imaging findings of recurrent/new varices or stent occlusion.

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.

Surgical shunts compared with endoscopic sclerotherapy for the treatment of variceal bleeding in adults with portal hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Portal hypertension is a common complication of chronic liver disease and can cause variceal bleeding which is associated with high mortality. Choices for the treatment of variceal bleeding include surgical shunts and endoscopic sclerotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of surgical shunts and endoscopic sclerotherapy in treating variceal bleeding due to portal hypertension.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Medline, PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar databases were searched until 12 February 2015, for relevant randomised control trials. Twenty studies with a total of 1540 participants were included.

PATIENTS

Patients with variceal bleeding due to portal hypertension.

INTERVENTIONS

Surgical shunts compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rates of rebleeding, survival and hepatoencephalopathy, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Pooled data for 17 studies showed that the rate of rebleeding was significantly more frequent with sclerotherapy compared with surgical shunt therapy (OR 3.99, 95% CI 2.98 to 5.33, p<0.001). The sclerotherapy patient group compared with the shunt group was less likely to develop hepatoencephalopathy (15 studies: pooled OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.91, p=0.021) and had shorter hospital stays (pooled mean difference-4.32, 95% CI- 7.97 to -0.66, p=0.021). No significant difference in the survival rate was observed between the two groups (seven studies: OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.62, p=0.964).

CONCLUSION

This analysis indicated that the two types of treatment have similar mortality rates but differed with respect to rebleeding rate, incidence of hepatoencephalopathy and length of hospital stay.

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).

Portal-systemic encephalopathy in a randomized controlled trial of endoscopic sclerotherapy versus emergency portacaval shunt treatment of acutely bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

In patients with cirrhosis and bleeding esophageal varices, there is a widespread belief that control of bleeding by portal-systemic shunts is compromised by a high incidence of shunt-related portal-systemic encephalopathy (PSE). This important issue was examined by a randomized controlled trial that compared emergency and long-term endoscopic sclerotherapy (EST) to emergency direct portacaval shunt (EPCS) in patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal hemorrhage.

METHODS

The study was a community-wide undertaking known as the San Diego Bleeding Esophageal Varices Study. A total of 211 unselected, consecutive patients with biopsy-proven cirrhosis and endoscopically proven, acutely bleeding esophageal varices that required at least 2 units of blood transfusion were randomized to EST (n = 106) or EPCS (n = 105). The diagnostic workup was completed in less than 6 hours and EST or EPCS was initiated within 8 hours of initial contact. Long-term EST was performed according to a deliberate schedule over months. Criteria for failure of EST or EPCS were clearly defined and crossover rescue treatment was applied, whenever possible, when failure of primary therapy was declared. PSE was quantitated by a "blinded" senior faculty gastroenterologist. Four variously weighted components of PSE were graded on a scale of 0 to 4: (1) mental state, (2) asterixis, (3) number connection test, and (4) arterial blood ammonia. PSE was classified as recurrent if 2 or more episodes were documented. All patients (100%) had follow-up for more than 9.4 years or until death.

RESULTS

Child's risk classes in the EST and EPCS groups, respectively, were 25% and 30% in class A, 43% and 47% in class B, and 26% and 29% in class C. Mean time from onset of bleeding to EST or EPCS was less than 24 hours, and from study entry to EST or EPCS was 3.1 to 4.4 hours, respectively. EST achieved permanent control of bleeding in only 20% of patients, while EPCS permanently controlled bleeding in every patient (P ≤ 0.001). Survival following EPCS was 3.5 to 5 times greater than that of EST at 5, 10, and 15 years (P ≤ 0.001). The incidence of recurrent PSE following EST (35%) was more than twice the incidence following EPCS (15%) (P ≤ 0.001). EST patients had a total of 179 episodes of PSE and 146 PSE-related hospital admissions, compared with EPCS patients who had 94 episodes of PSE and 87 hospital admissions (P ≤ 0.001). Recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding, which was rare in the EPCS group, was a major causative factor of PSE in the EST patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to EST, EPCS permanently controlled variceal bleeding, resulted in significantly greater long-term survival, and was followed by a relatively low (15%) incidence of PSE. These results were facilitated by rigorous, frequent, and lifelong follow-up that included regular counseling on dietary protein restriction and abstinence from alcohol, and by long-term patency of the portacaval shunt in 98% of patients. Furthermore, these results call into question the practice of avoiding portacaval shunt because of fear of PSE, and thereby foregoing the lifesaving advantage achieved by surgical control of bleeding. (clinicaltrials.gov NCT00690027).

A Case of Isolated Duodenal Varices Secondary to Chronic Pancreatitis with Review of Literature

An unusual case of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage due to an isolated varix involving the 2nd part of the duodenum is presented here. The varix was the result of Chronic Pancreatitis induced the superior mesenteric vein obstruction. The diagnosis was made preoperatively by upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and selective mesenteric angiogram. Patient was treated successfully with Mesocaval shunt surgery between the superior mesenteric vein and the inferior vena cava using a 10 mm Dacron graft. This is the unique case showing hemorrhagic complication of Chronic Pancreatitis due to the superior mesenteric vein obstruction.

Randomized trial of emergency endoscopic sclerotherapy versus emergency portacaval shunt for acutely bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

The mortality rate of bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis is highest during the period of acute bleeding. This is a report of a randomized trial that compared endoscopic sclerotherapy (EST) with emergency portacaval shunt (EPCS) in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal hemorrhage.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 211 unselected consecutive patients with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding esophageal varices who required at least 2 U of blood transfusion were randomized to EST (n=106) or EPCS (n=105). Diagnostic workup was completed within 6 hours and EST or EPCS was initiated within 8 hours of initial contact. Longterm EST was performed according to a deliberate schedule. Ninety-six percent of patients underwent more than 10 years of followup, or until death.

RESULTS

The percent of patients in Child's risk classes were A, 27.5; B, 45.0; and C, 27.5. EST achieved permanent control of bleeding in only 20% of patients; EPCS permanently controlled bleeding in every patient (p< or =0.001). Requirement for blood transfusions was greater in the EST group than in the EPCS patients. Compared with EST, survival after EPCS was significantly higher at all time intervals and in all Child's classes (p< or =0.001). Recurrent episodes of portal-systemic encephalopathy developed in 35% of EST patients and 15% of EPCS patients (p< or =0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

EPCS permanently stopped variceal bleeding, rarely became occluded, was accomplished with a low incidence of portal-systemic encephalopathy, and compared with EST, produced greater longterm survival. The widespread practice of using surgical procedures mainly as salvage for failure of endoscopic therapy is not supported by the results of this trial (clinicaltrials.gov #NCT00690027).

Portosystemic shunts versus endoscopic therapy for variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Randomised clinical trials have compared portosystemic shunting procedures with endoscopic therapy for variceal haemorrhage, but there is no consensus as to which approach is preferable.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of shunts (total surgical shunt (TS); distal spleno-renal shunts (DSRS) or transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunts (TIPS) with endoscopic therapy (ET, sclerotherapy and/or banding) for prevention of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, and the references of identified trials were searched (last search February 2004). Researchers in the field and in industry were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing TS, DSRS or TIPS with ET in patients who had recovered from a variceal haemorrhage and were known to be cirrhotic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected to allow intention-to-treat analysis where possible. For each outcome, a pooled estimate of treatment effect (log hazard ratio for time to outcome, Peto odds ratio for binary outcomes, and differences in means for continuous outcomes) across trials was calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two trials evaluating 1409 patients were included. All trials had problems of method. Shunt therapy compared with ET demonstrated significantly less rebleeding (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.30) at the cost of significantly increased acute hepatic encephalopathy (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.69) and chronic encephalopathy (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.62). There were no significant differences regarding mortality (hazard ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.21) and duration of in-patient stay (weighed mean difference 0.78 day, 95% CI -1.48 to 3.05). The proportion of patients with shunt occlusion or dysfunction was 3.1% (95% CI 0.4 to 10.7%) following TS (two trials), 7.8% (95% CI 3.8 to 13.9%) following DSRS (four trials), and 59% (range 18% to 72%) following TIPS (14 trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All shunts resulted in a significantly lower rebleeding rate at the expense of a higher incidence of encephalopathy. TIPS was complicated by a high incidence of shunt dysfunction. No survival advantage was demonstrated with any shunt.

Portosystemic shunts versus endoscopic therapy for variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Randomised clinical trials have compared portosystemic shunting procedures with endoscopic therapy for variceal haemorrhage, but there is no consensus as to which approach is preferable.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of shunts (total surgical shunt (TS); distal spleno-renal shunts (DSRS) or transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunts (TIPS) with endoscopic therapy (ET, sclerotherapy and/or banding) for prevention of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, and the references of identified trials were searched (last search February 2004). Researchers in the field and in industry were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing TS, DSRS or TIPS with ET in patients who had recovered from a variceal haemorrhage and were known to be cirrhotic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected to allow intention-to-treat analysis where possible. For each outcome, a pooled estimate of treatment effect (log hazard ratio for time to outcome, Peto odds ratio for binary outcomes, and differences in means for continuous outcomes) across trials was calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two trials evaluating 1409 patients were included. All trials had problems of method. Shunt therapy compared with ET demonstrated significantly less rebleeding (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.30) at the cost of significantly increased acute hepatic encephalopathy (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.69) and chronic encephalopathy (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.62). There were no significant differences regarding mortality (hazard ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.21) and duration of in-patient stay (weighed mean difference 0.78 day, 95% CI -1.48 to 3.05). The proportion of patients with shunt occlusion or dysfunction was 3.1% (95% CI 0.4 to 10.7%) following TS (two trials), 7.8% (95% CI 3.8 to 13.9%) following DSRS (four trials), and 59% (range 18% to 72%) following TIPS (14 trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All shunts resulted in a significantly lower rebleeding rate at the expense of a higher incidence of encephalopathy. TIPS was complicated by a high incidence of shunt dysfunction. No survival advantage was demonstrated with any shunt.

Hepatic encephalopathy verified by psychometric testing and EEG in cirrhotic patients: effects of mesocaval interposition shunt or sclerotherapy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this randomised prospective study was to evaluate hepatic encephalopathy after mesocaval interposition shunt operation and after repeated endoscopic sclerotherapy.

METHODS

Forty-five patients with bleeding oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis were randomised to the two treatment groups, 24 to the shunt group and 21 to the sclerotherapy group. The patients were evaluated preoperatively regarding blood tests, hepatic encephalopathy as measured by electroencephalogram with spectral analysis and by a battery of psychometric tests. The direction of portal flow in the shunt group was investigated by shunt phlebography and ultrasonography with Doppler. During follow-up the same investigations were performed twice at median 6.7 and 14.7 months after operation.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was found during follow-up regarding blood tests and electroencephalography with spectral analysis. Although the preoperative psychometric tests showed that the shunt group performed significantly better than the sclerotherapy group, the first follow-up showed that the shunt group performed statistically worse than the sclerotherapy group in seven of the tests: Synonyms (measuring verbal ability), Block Design Test (measuring visuo-spatial ability), Memory for Design Test, Error Score (measuring memory function), Revised Visual Retention Test, correct answers and the same test error answers (measuring visuo-spatial memory, ability and immediate memory), Digit Symbol Test (measuring perceptual ability) and Trial Making Test B (measuring cognitive motor abilities).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated by mesocaval interposition shunt showed a progressive general reduction in psychometric performance compared with patients treated with repeated sclerotherapy, in whom a general intellectual improvement was observed. This finding corresponds to the reverse direction of the preoperative portal flow to a hepatofugal pattern at first follow-up and at 12 months among two-thirds of the patients.

Current state of portosystemic shunt surgery

BACKGROUND

A switch to decompressive shunt procedures is mandatory if endoscopic therapy fails to control recurrent variceal hemorrhage. Surgical shunt procedures continue to be safe, highly effective, and durable procedures to treat variceal bleeding in patients with low operative risk and good liver function.

DISCUSSION

In cirrhotics, elective operations using portal flow preserving techniques such as a selective distal splenorenal shunt (Warren) and a partial portocaval small diameter interposition shunt (Sarfeh) should be preferred. Rarely, end-to-side portocaval shunt may serve as a salvage procedure if emergency endoscopic treatment or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt insertion fails to stop bleeding. Until definitive results from randomized trials are available patients with good prognosis (Child-Pugh A and B) should be regarded as candidates for surgical shunts. For patients with noncirrhotic portal hypertension, in particular with extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis, portosystemic shunt surgery represents the only effective therapy which leads to freedom of recurrent bleeding and repeated endoscopies for many years, and improves hypersplenism without deteriorating liver function or encephalopathy. Gastroesophageal devascularization and other direct variceal ablative procedures should be restricted to treat endoscopic therapy failures without shuntable portal tributaries.

Effect of mesocaval interposition shunting and repeated sclerotherapy on blood levels of gastrointestinal regulatory peptides, amino acids, and lysosomal enzymes--a prospective randomised trial

AIMS/BACKGROUND

Patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension frequently exhibit a multitude of alterations of hormones and metabolism, but the relation of these alterations to liver function, degree of blood shunting, and hepatic encephalopathy remains unclear.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients were randomised to mesocaval interposition shunt (MIS) and 21 patients to repeated sclerotherapy (ST). Several peptide hormones, amino acids and lysosomal enzymes were monitored during a 4 year follow-up period.

RESULTS

Insulin and glucagon levels were elevated in the MIS group compared to pre-therapy levels, whereas the gastrin level was significantly higher in the ST group. Pancreatic polypeptide, somatostatin and vasoactive intestinal peptide levels were not affected by either treatment. The branched chain amino acids valine, leucine and isoleucine serum levels were all elevated after ST, and the arginine, proline and tyrosine levels were higher in the MIS group at follow-up. Other amino acids were not changed, neither were the lysosomal enzymes beta-hexosaminidase nor beta-glucoronidase during this longterm follow-up.

CONCLUSION

MIS or repeated ST treatment only affected serum levels of hormones, amino acids and lysosomal enzymes to a limited extent. In this trial, the type of treatment had only a small influence on these parameters during long term follow-up.

Medium aperture meso-caval shunts reliably prevent recurrent variceal hemorrhages

BACKGROUND

Objectives of partial medium aperture mesocaval shunts (MCS) include reduction of portal hypertension to prevent recurrent variceal hemorrhage, preservation of portal flow through liver while maintaining an intact porta hepatis to facilitate a future liver transplant (OLTx).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifteen patients were retrospectively analyzed to review the indications for the procedure, its short- and long-term complications as well as patency and functional status of the shunt. They were followed for a period of 21 months.

RESULTS

The perioperative and long-term mortality rate was 0%. Rebleeding rate perioperatively and in follow-up was 0%. Early shunt nonfunction was 13% and post-shunt encephalopathy (PSE) was 20%. The encephalopathy was grade I to II and controlled medically. Abdominal ultrasound and Doppler confirmed 13 patent shunts (2 patients did not agree to ultrasound) with preserved hepatopetal flow in 10.

CONCLUSIONS

Medium aperture MCS utilizing ringed polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts safely and reliably prevent recurrent variceal hemorrhage. Encephalopathy is infrequent and mild. This technique preserves the portal venous anatomy making a future OLTx technically easier.