Randomized controlled trial of sclerotherapy versus somatostatin infusion in the prevention of early rebleeding following acute variceal hemorrhage in patients with cirrhosis. Variceal Bleeding Study Group

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.

Timing of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy does not influence short-term outcomes in patients with acute variceal bleeding

AIM

To examine the association between the timing of endoscopy and the short-term outcomes of acute variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 274 consecutive patients admitted with acute esophageal variceal bleeding of two tertiary hospitals in Korea. We adjusted confounding factors using the Cox proportional hazards model and the inverse probability weighting (IPW) method. The primary outcome was the mortality of patients within 6 wk.

RESULTS

A total of 173 patients received urgent endoscopy (i.e., ≤ 12 h after admission), and 101 patients received non-urgent endoscopy (> 12 h after admission). The 6-wk mortality rate was 22.5% in the urgent endoscopy group and 29.7% in the non-urgent endoscopy group, and there was no significant difference between the two groups before (P = 0.266) and after IPW (P = 0.639). The length of hospital stay was statistically different between the urgent group and non-urgent group (P = 0.033); however, there was no significant difference in the in-hospital mortality rate between the two groups (8.1% vs 7.9%, P = 0.960). In multivariate analyses, timing of endoscopy was not associated with 6-wk mortality (hazard ratio, 1.297; 95% confidence interval, 0.806-2.089; P = 0.284).

CONCLUSION

In cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding, the timing of endoscopy may be independent of short-term mortality.

Three-day versus five-day somatostatin infusion combination with endoscopic variceal ligation in the prevention of early rebleeding following acute variceal hemorrhage: A randomized controlled trial

AIM

Combined pharmacological and endoscopic therapy is recommended for initial treatment of acute variceal bleeding (AVB). The optimal duration of therapy with a vasoactive agent is not well established. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of 3-day and 5-day somatostatin treatment in the prevention of early rebleeding after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL).

METHODS

In a double-blind, prospective trial, cirrhotic patients with AVB who underwent EVL were randomly assigned to receive a continuous infusion of somatostatin for either 3 days or 5 days.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients were enrolled; 50 patients in the 3-day group and 45 patients in the 5-day group after initial hemostasis by combination therapy with somatostatin and EVL. Both groups were comparable in terms of baseline data. Very early and early rebleeding within 5 days and 42 days occurred in one and three patient (2%, 6%) in the 3-day group and three and two patients (6.67%, 4.45%) in the 5-day group (P = 0.342, 0.735), respectively. Overall, eight patients died (three from variceal rebleeding and five from causes other than variceal bleed); four (8%) in the 3-day group and four (8.89%) in the 5-day group (P = 0.876). Multivariate analysis revealed that none of the factors was a predictor of rebleeding. No serious side-effects and complications were observed.

CONCLUSION

A 3-day course of somatostatin is as effective as a 5-day course for the control of variceal bleeding and prevention of early rebleeding when used as combination therapy with EVL.

Variceal and other portal hypertension related bleeding

Variceal bleeding is one of the commonest and most severe complications of liver cirrhosis. Even with the current best medical care, mortality from variceal bleeding is still around 20%. When cirrhosis is diagnosed, varices are present in about 30-40% of compensated patients and in 60% of those who present with ascites. Once varices have been diagnosed, the overall incidence of variceal bleeding is in the order of 25% at two years. Variceal size is the most useful predictor for variceal bleeding, other predictors are severity of liver dysfunction (Child-Pugh classification) and the presence of red wale marks on the variceal wall. The current consensus is that every cirrhotic patient should be endoscopically screened for varices at the time of diagnosis to detect those requiring prophylactic treatment. Non-selective beta-adrenergic blockers (NSBB) and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) have been shown effective in the prevention of first variceal bleeding. The current recommendation for treating acute variceal bleeding is to start vasoactive drug therapy early (ideally during the transferral or to arrival to hospital, even if active bleeding is only suspected) and performing EBL. Once bleeding is controlled, combination therapy with NSBB + EBL should be used to prevent rebleeding. In patients at high risk of treatment failure despite of using this approach, an early covered-TIPS within 72 h (ideally 24 h) should be considered. Data on management of gastric variceal bleeding is limited. No clear recommendation for primary prophylaxis can be done. In acute cardiofundal variceal bleeding, vasoactive agents together with cyanoacrylate (CA) injection seem to be the treatment of choice. Further CA injections and/or NSBB may be used to prevent rebleeding. TIPS or Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration when TIPS is contraindicated may be used as a rescue therapy.

[Mexican consensus on portal hypertension]

The aim of the Mexican Consensus on Portal Hypertension was to develop documented guidelines to facilitate clinical practice when dealing with key events of the patient presenting with portal hypertension and variceal bleeding. The panel of experts was made up of Mexican gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and endoscopists, all distinguished professionals. The document analyzes themes of interest in the following modules: preprimary and primary prophylaxis, acute variceal hemorrhage, and secondary prophylaxis. The management of variceal bleeding has improved considerably in recent years. Current information indicates that the general management of the cirrhotic patient presenting with variceal bleeding should be carried out by a multidisciplinary team, with such an approach playing a major role in the final outcome. The combination of drug and endoscopic therapies is recommended for initial management; vasoactive drugs should be started as soon as variceal bleeding is suspected and maintained for 5 days. After the patient is stabilized, urgent diagnostic endoscopy should be carried out by a qualified endoscopist, who then performs the corresponding endoscopic variceal treatment. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be regarded as an integral part of treatment, started upon hospital admittance and continued for 5 days. If there is treatment failure, rescue therapies should be carried out immediately, taking into account that interventional radiology therapies are very effective in controlling refractory variceal bleeding. These guidelines have been developed for the purpose of achieving greater clinical efficacy and are based on the best evidence of portal hypertension that is presently available.

Application of endoscopy in improving survival of cirrhotic patients with acute variceal hemorrhage

Playing a central role in the modern multidisciplinary management of acute gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage, endoscopy is essential to stratify patient at risk, control active hemorrhage, and prevent first as well as recurrent bleeding. Before endoscopic procedure, antibiotic prophylaxis along with vasoactive medication is now routine practice. Intravenous erythromycin effectively cleanses stomach and may improve the quality of endoscopy. The timing of endoscopy should be on an urgent basis as delay for more than 15 hours after presentation is associated with mortality. Active variceal bleeding on endoscopy in a patient with hepatic decompensation heralds poor prognosis and mandates consideration of aggressive strategy with early portosystemic shunting. Band ligation has become the preferred modality to control and prevent bleeding from esophageal varices, although occasionally sclerotherapy may still be used to achieve hemostasis. Addition of pharmacotherapy with nonselective beta blockade to endoscopic ligation has become the current standard of care in the setting of secondary prophylaxis but remains controversial with inconsistent data for the purpose of primary prophylaxis. Gastric varices extending from esophagus may be treated like esophageal varices, whereas variceal obliteration by tissue glue is the endoscopic therapy of choice to control and prevent bleeding from fundic and isolated gastric varices.

Clinical pharmacology of portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is an increase in pressure in the portal vein and its tributaries. It is defined as a portal pressure gradient (the difference in pressure between the portal vein and the hepatic veins) greater than 5 mm Hg. Although this gradient defines portal hypertension, a gradient of 10 mm Hg or greater defines clinically significant portal hypertension, because this pressure gradient predicts the development of varices, decompensation of cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The most direct consequence of portal hypertension is the development of gastroesophageal varices that may rupture and lead to the development of variceal hemorrhage. This article reviews the pathophysiologic bases of the different pharmacologic treatments for portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis and places them in the context of the natural history of varices and variceal hemorrhage.

Acute esophageal variceal bleeding: Current strategies and new perspectives

Management of acute variceal bleeding has greatly improved over recent years. Available data indicates that general management of the bleeding cirrhotic patient by an experienced multidisciplinary team plays a major role in the final outcome of this complication. It is currently recommended to combine pharmacological and endoscopic therapies for the initial treatment of the acute bleeding. Vasoactive drugs (preferable somatostatin or terlipressin) should be started as soon as a variceal bleeding is suspected (ideally during transfer to hospital) and maintained afterwards for 2-5 d. After stabilizing the patient with cautious fluid and blood support, an emergency diagnostic endoscopy should be done and, as soon as a skilled endoscopist is available, an endoscopic variceal treatment (ligation as first choice, sclerotherapy if endoscopic variceal ligation not feasible) should be performed. Antibiotic prophylaxis must be regarded as an integral part of the treatment of acute variceal bleeding and should be started at admission and maintained for at least 7 d. In case of failure to control the acute bleeding, rescue therapies should be immediately started. Shunt therapies (especially transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt) are very effective at controlling treatment failures after an acute variceal bleeding. Therapeutic developments and increasing knowledge in the prognosis of this complication may allow optimization of the management strategy by adapting the different treatments to the expected risk of complications for each patient in the near future. Theoretically, this approach would allow the initiation of early aggressive treatments in high-risk patients and spare low-risk individuals unnecessary procedures. Current research efforts will hopefully clarify this hypothesis and help to further improve the outcomes of the severe complication of cirrhosis.

Management of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage

Acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (AEVH) is a severe complication of portal hypertension. Its management has rapidly evolved in recent years. Traditional methods included vasoconstrictor and balloon tamponade. Vasoconstrictors were shown to control approximately 80% of the bleeding episodes and are generally used as a first-line therapy. Following the use of vasoconstrictors, endoscopic therapy is often used to arrest the bleeding varices and prevent early rebleeding. A meta-analysis showed that the combination of vasoconstrictor and endoscopic therapy is superior to endoscopic therapy alone for controlling AEVH. Balloon tamponade may be used to achieve temporary control of the hemorrhage in case of severe bleeding. A transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt may be needed in patients with refractory acute variceal hemorrhage. Surgical intervention is now widely contraindicated during acute variceal hemorrhage, except for patients with good liver reserve. Conversely, apart from the control of acute variceal hemorrhage, prophylactic antibiotics were shown to be helpful in the prevention of bacterial infection and to prevent early variceal rebleeding. With the introduction of new treatment modalities and the measures taken to manage patients with AEVH, the mortality due to AEVH has significantly decreased in recent years.

Management of acute variceal bleeding: emphasis on endoscopic therapy

Acute variceal bleeding is one of the most serious and feared complications of patients with portal hypertension. The most common cause of portal hypertension is advanced liver disease. Patients with esophageal and gastric varices may bleed because of a progressive increase in portal pressure that causes them to grow and finally rupture. This article will review the current management strategies for acute variceal bleeding with emphasis on endoscopic therapy for the acute episode.

Emergency sclerotherapy versus vasoactive drugs for bleeding oesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND

Emergency sclerotherapy is still widely used as a first line therapy for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, particularly when banding ligation is not available or feasible. However, pharmacological treatment may stop bleeding in the majority of these patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of emergency sclerotherapy versus vasoactive drugs for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Search of trials was based on The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded through January 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing sclerotherapy with vasoactive drugs (vasopressin (with or without nitroglycerin), terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide) for acute variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Outcome measures were failure to control bleeding, five-day treatment failure, rebleeding, mortality, number of blood transfusions, and adverse events. Data were analysed by a random-effects model according to the vasoactive treatment. Sensitivity analyses included combined analysis of all the trials irrespective of the vasoactive drug, type of publication, and risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen trials including 1817 patients were identified. Vasoactive drugs were vasopressin (one trial), terlipressin (one trial), somatostatin (five trials), and octreotide (ten trials). No significant differences were found comparing sclerotherapy with each vasoactive drug for any outcome. Combining all the trials irrespective of the vasoactive drug, the risk differences (95% confidence intervals) were failure to control bleeding -0.02 (-0.06 to 0.02), five-day failure rate -0.05 (-0.10 to 0.01), rebleeding 0.01 (-0.03 to 0.05), mortality (17 randomised trials, 1817 patients) -0.02 (-0.06 to 0.02), and transfused blood units (8 randomised trials, 849 patients) (weighted mean difference) -0.24 (-0.54 to 0.07). Adverse events 0.08 (0.03 to 0.14) and serious adverse events 0.05 (0.02 to 0.08) were significantly more frequent with sclerotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing evidence to support the use of emergency sclerotherapy for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis as the first, single treatment when compared with vasoactive drugs. Vasoactive drugs may be safe and effective whenever endoscopic therapy is not promptly available and seems to be associated with less adverse events than emergency sclerotherapy. Other meta-analyses and guidelines advocate that combined vasoactive drugs and endoscopic therapy is superior to either intervention alone.

Delayed endoscopy as a risk factor for in-hospital mortality in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal hemorrhage

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Risk factors for mortality in acute variceal hemorrhage remain incompletely understood. Whether endoscopy timing is associated with risk of mortality has not been investigated. We aimed to investigate risk factors for in-hospital mortality in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal hemorrhage, with emphasis on endoscopy timing.

METHODS

Three hundred and eleven (73% male and 23% female) consecutive cirrhotic patients presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage from July 2004 to July 2007 were investigated. The univariate association of endoscopy timing as the predictor for in-hospital mortality was examined. Independent risk factors for mortality were determined by multivariate logistic regression analysis consisting of clinical, laboratory and endoscopic parameters.

RESULTS

Twenty-five (8.04%) patients died within admission. By plotting the receiver operating curve of endoscopy timing for mortality, we selected 15 h as the optimal cut-off point to define delayed endoscopy. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that independent risk factors predictive for in-hospital mortality included delayed endoscopy performed 15 h after admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-10.39), every point increment of model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (aOR = 1.16; 95% CI, 1.07-1.25), failure of the first endoscopy (aOR = 4.36; 95% CI, 1.54-12.30) and hematemesis as the chief complaint (compared with melena, aOR = 8.66; 95% CI, 1.06-70.94).

CONCLUSION

Delayed endoscopy for more than 15 h, high MELD score, failure of the first endoscopy and hematemesis are independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality in cirrhotic patients with acute variceal hemorrhage.

Long-term prognosis of cirrhotics with an upper gastrointestinal bleeding episode: does infection play a role?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

We evaluated the effect of infection on the short- and long-term outcome of cirrhotic patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), in a series of patients not submitted to antibiotic prophylaxis.

METHODS

The cirrhotic patients hospitalized for UGIB were prospectively followed up until the last visit, death, or transplantation. A standard screening protocol was used for bacterial infection at admission.

RESULTS

In total, 205 patients were included in the study. Antibiotics were administered in 79 (38.5%) patients and an infection was documented in 64 (31.4%) patients. In total, 130 (63.4%) patients died after a mean (SD) follow up of 23.8 (30.9) months. Six-week mortality was higher in the infected patients (P < 0.0001). The mortality of patients who were alive 6 weeks after admission was not different between the infected and non-infected patients. Antibiotic use or bacterial infection, the Child-Pugh score, hepatocellular carcinoma, and creatinine were the independent predictors of 6-week mortality. Age and the Child-Pugh score were the only predictors of mortality of the patients who had survived for more than 6 weeks after acute bleeding. In total, 51 (24.9%) patients rebled, 37 (18.1%) within 5 days of admission. Rebleeding was more frequent (41.8% vs 14.3%, P < 0.0001) in infected patients, mostly due to differences in early rebleeding (31.6% vs 9.5%, P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Bacterial infection is associated with failure to control UGIB and early mortality in cirrhotic patients, but does not seem to affect the outcome of patients who overcome the bleeding episode.

The management of portal hypertension: rational basis, available treatments and future options

Variceal bleeding is the last step in a chain of events initiated by an increase in portal pressure, followed by the development and progressive dilation of varices until these finally rupture and bleed. This sequence of events might be prevented - and reversed - by achieving a sufficient decrease in portal pressure. A different approach is the use of local endoscopic treatments at the varices. This article reviews the rationale for the management of patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, the current recommendations for the prevention and treatment of variceal bleeding, and outlines the unsolved issues and the perspectives for the future opened by new research developments.

Acute variceal bleeding: pharmacological treatment and primary/secondary prophylaxis

Variceal bleeding is one of the most severe complications of portal hypertension related to liver cirrhosis. Primary prophylaxis is considered mandatory in patients with cirrhosis and high-risk oesophageal varices, and once varices have bled, every effort should be made to arrest the haemorrhage and prevent further bleeding episodes. In acute variceal bleeding, vasoactive drugs that lower portal pressure should be started even before endoscopy, and should be maintained for up to 5 days. The choice of vasoactive drug should be made according to local resources. Terlipressin, somatostatin and octreotide can be used; vasopressin plus transdermal nitroglycerin may be used if no other drug is available. In variceal bleeding, antibiotic therapy is also mandatory. In primary and secondary prophylaxis, beta-blockers are the mainstay of therapy. In secondary prophylaxis (but not in primary prophylaxis) these drugs can be combined with organic nitrates.

Hepatic venous pressure gradient and prognosis in patients with acute variceal bleeding treated with pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In acute variceal bleeding (AVB) hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is associated with prognosis. However, this has not been studied in patients receiving the currently recommended therapy. We evaluate here the performance of early HVPG measurement as a predictor of treatment failure in patients with acute variceal bleeding managed with the current standard treatment and whether clinical variables might be of similar predictive accuracy.

METHODS

We included 117 patients with AVB in whom HVPG was measured within 48 h of admission. The main endpoint was 5-day failure, a composite of uncontrolled bleeding, early rebleeding or death within 5 days.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients (15%) had 5-day failure. Multivariate analysis identified three variables independently associated with 5-day failure: HVPG 20, systolic blood pressure at admission <100 mmHg and non-alcoholic cause of cirrhosis. The discriminative capacity of this model was good (c statistic: 0.79). When only clinical variables were included in the analysis, Child-Pugh class, systolic blood pressure at admission and etiology were the independent predictors. This model had also a good discriminative ability (c statistic: 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

HVPG independently predicts short-term prognosis in patients with acute variceal bleeding treated with pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy, but similar predictive accuracy can be achieved using only simple clinical variables that have universal applicability.

The treatment of acute variceal bleeding

Bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is a frequent and often deadly complication of cirrhosis. Although mortality from an episode of variceal bleeding has decreased in the last 2 decades it is still around 20%. This paper reviews the most recent advancements in the general management and hemostatic treatments of acute variceal bleeding.

Infection et rupture de varice œsophagienne au cours de la cirrhose

Endotoxemia and bacterial infection are frequent in patients with cirrhosis. They alter systemic and splanchnic hemodynamics, worsen coagulation disorders, impair liver function and thus may induce variceal bleeding. In variceal bleeding, bacterial infection favours failure to control bleeding, early rebleeding, and death. In patients with cirrhosis and variceal bleeding, antibiotic-prophylaxis decreases bacterial infection and the incidence of early rebleeding, and, more important, significantly decreases the death rate in these patients.

Emergency endoscopic variceal ligation versus somatostatin for acute esophageal variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic variceal ligation and somatostatin are widely used for treating acute esophageal variceal bleeding. This study compared the efficacy, safety, and survival of both therapies.

METHODS

Acute esophageal variceal bleeding patients were randomized to undergo emergency ligation or receive a bolus of 250 microg somatostatin plus infusion at 250 microg/hour for 48 hours and undergo ligation subsequently.

RESULTS

Three (4.8%) of 62 patients in the ligation group and 20 (31.7%) of 63 patients in the somatostatin group encountered treatment failure (p = 0.0001). Transfusion requirements were 4.7 +/- 3.2 units in the ligation group and 6.9 +/- 7.3 units in the somatostatin group (p = 0.03). Hospital stay was 7.7 +/- 4.0 days in the ligation group and 10.2 +/- 9.9 days in the somatostatin group (p = 0.07). Adverse effects occurred in the ligation group (20 episodes) and the somatostatin group (27 episodes) (p = 0.2). The 42-day mortality rates were 5 patients (8.1%) in the ligation group and 3 patients (4.8%) in the somatostatin group (p = 0.5).

CONCLUSION

Emergency ligation was superior to somatostatin in treating acute esophageal variceal bleeding, with fewer requirements of transfusion and a tendency toward shorter hospital stay. The adverse effects and 42-day mortality rates were similar between both treatments.

Bleeding caused by portal hypertension

Variceal bleeding is one of the dreaded complications of portal hypertension. Patients who have suspected or proven cirrhosis should undergo diagnostic upper endoscopy to detect medium and large gastro-esophageal varices. Patients with medium and large gastro-esophageal varices should be treated with non-selective beta-blockers (propranolol or nadolol), and these agents should be titrated to a heart rate of 55 beats per minute or adverse effects. If there are contraindications to or if patients are intolerant to beta-blockers, it is appropriate to consider prophylactic banding therapy for individuals with medium-to-large esophageal varices. When patients who have cirrhosis present with GI bleeding, they should be resuscitated and receive octreotide or other vasoactive agents. Endoscopy should be performed promptly to diagnose the source of bleeding and to provide endoscopic therapy (preferably banding). The currently available treatment for acute variceal bleeding provides hemostasis in most patients. These patients, however, are at significant risk for rebleeding unless secondary prophylaxis is provided. Although various pharmacological, endoscopic, radiological, and surgical options are available, combined pharmacological and endoscopic therapy is the most common form of secondary prophylaxis. TIPS is a radiologically placed portasystemic shunt, and if placed in suitable patients, it can provide effective treatment for patients with variceal bleeding that is refractory to medical and endoscopic therapy.

The management of portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is an almost unavoidable complication of cirrhosis, and it is responsible for the more lethal complications of this syndrome. Appearance of these complications represents the major cause of death and liver transplantation in patients who have cirrhosis. This article highlights treatment modalities in use for managing portal hypertension and those that may be available in the future.

Diagnosis and treatment of portal hypertension

Prevention of the first variceal haemorrhage should start when the patients have developed medium-sized to large varices. Non-selective beta-blockers and band ligation are equally effective in preventing the first bleeding episode. Rubber band ligation is the first choice for patients with contraindications or intolerance to beta-blockers. Treatment of acute bleeding should aim at controlling bleeding and preventing early rebleeding and complications, especially infections. Combined endoscopic (band ligation or sclerotherapy) and pharmacological treatment with vasoactive drugs can control bleeding in up to 90% of patients. Antibiotic prophylaxis is an integral part of the treatment of acute variceal haemorrhage, and must be started as soon as possible. Emergency transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPS) is the standard rescue therapy for patients failing combined endoscopic and pharmacological treatment. All patients who survive a variceal bleed should be treated with beta-blockers or band ligation to prevent rebleeding. All patients in whom bleeding cannot be controlled or who continue to rebleed can be treated with salvage TIPS or, in selected cases, with surgical shunts. Liver transplantation should be considered for patients with severe liver insufficiency in which first-line treatments fail.

Review article: definition and diagnosis in portal hypertension--continued problems with the Baveno consensus?

The goals of the Baveno workshops were to develop consensus definitions of key events related to portal hypertension and variceal bleeding, and to produce guidelines to facilitate the conduct and reporting of clinical trials. The consensus definitions concern the diagnosis of active bleeding, failure to control bleeding, the criteria to distinguish continuing bleeding from rebleeding, and the means of assessing failure to prevent rebleeding. The guidelines concern the timing of diagnostic endoscopy, the policy for blood volume restitution, the measures to prevent infection and encephalopathy, and the treatment options for acute bleeding, as well as primary and secondary prophylaxis. The intention of the experts who developed the guidelines was that, as feedback from their practical application develops, they should be adapted to better fit the practical needs. The applicability of the Baveno definitions has been evaluated in a study where the definitions of clinically significant bleeding, failure to control bleeding, the time frame for the acute bleeding episode and the definition of rebleeding were tested. The main criticism raised in this study was that tachycardia, one of the criteria that define failure to control bleeding, was misleading in 15% of patients who had the symptom but were not bleeding.

Somatostatin, somatostatin analogues and other vasoactive drugs in the treatment of bleeding oesophageal varices

Somatostatin and its analogues have been compared with a variety of other treatments for the treatment of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients. Meta-analyses of studies comparing somatostatin or octreotide with vasopressin or terlipressin have shown that somatostatin is somewhat superior to vasopressin and equivalent to terlipressin in controlling bleeding and has significantly fewer side effects; no difference in mortality was observed. Octreotide was somewhat better than vasopressin and terlipressin in controlling bleeding, with similar mortality. Meta-analysis of trials comparing somatostatin or octreotide with endoscopic sclerotherapy shows that both drugs are equivalent to sclerotherapy for bleeding control, early rebleeding and survival. Complications are much less frequent with drug treatment. Nine trials have compared endoscopic therapy with therapeutic regimens combining endoscopic treatment with somatostatin, octreotide or vapreotide. Meta-analysis show that the combined regimens increase the 5 days bleeding control rate of endoscopic treatments by over 20%, although there is no difference in mortality. Comparisons of somatostatin and octreotide with combined regimens of sclerotherapy + somatostatin and sclerotherapy + octreotide have shown that the combined regimens were better than drug treatments alone in controlling bleeding and preventing early rebleeding, while complications were significantly less frequent with drug therapy.

Update on treatment of variceal hemorrhage

Variceal hemorrhage accounts for one third of all deaths related to cirrhosis. To date, many modalities of treating variceal bleeding have been devised, including pharmacological therapy. Treatment of variceal hemorrhage includes resuscitation, initial hemostasis, and prevention of complications and recurrent bleeding. Intravenous vasoactive agents such as terlipressin, somatostatin, octreotide, or vapreotide should be administered in patients with suspected variceal bleeding. Endoscopic treatment remains the mainstay of treatment. Endoscopic variceal ligation is safer and more efficacious than sclerotherapy as initial treatment of bleeding esophageal varices, whereas cyanoacrylate injection is the endoscopic treatment of choice for gastric varices. An adjuvant vasoactive agent is useful for the prevention of early rebleeding. Prophylactic antibiotics are increasingly used for prevention of infection, notably spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Follow-up endoscopic treatment is necessary in order to obliterate residual varices. The combination of a beta blocker and nitrate is an essential component of secondary prophylaxis for recurrent variceal bleeding. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt or surgery offers the best salvage therapy in patients with failed hemostasis or breakthrough recurrent bleeding despite medical and endoscopic therapy. Endoscopic ultrasonography is useful in the prediction of recurrence of varices and facilitates visualization and guidance of further treatment of gastric varices. Despite advances in the treatment of variceal bleeding, liver function remains the determining factor of patient survival. Liver transplantation is the only definitive treatment that can alter the course of the disease.

Emergency sclerotherapy versus vasoactive drugs for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis: a Cochrane meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Emergency sclerotherapy is used as a first-line therapy for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis, although pharmacologic treatment stops bleeding in most patients. We performed a meta-analysis comparing emergency sclerotherapy with pharmacologic treatment.

METHODS

MEDLINE (1968-2002), EMBASE (1986-2002), and the Cochrane Library (2002;4) were searched to retrieve randomized controlled trials comparing sclerotherapy with vasopressin (+/- nitroglycerin), terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis. Outcome measures were failure to control bleeding, rebleeding, blood transfusions, adverse events, and mortality.

RESULTS

Fifteen trials were identified. Sclerotherapy was not superior to terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide for any outcome and to vasopressin for rebleeding, blood transfusions, death, and adverse events; it was superior to vasopressin for the control of bleeding in a single trial flawed by a potential detection bias. Sclerotherapy was associated with significantly more adverse events than somatostatin. In a predefined sensitivity analysis, combining all of the trials irrespective of the control treatment, risk differences (sclerotherapy minus control) and confidence intervals (CIs) were as follows: failure to control bleeding, -0.03 (-0.06 to 0.01); mortality, -0.035 (-0.07 to 0.008); adverse events, 0.08 (0.02 to 0.14). Mortality risk difference was -0.01 (-0.07 to 0.04) in good-quality trials and -0.08 (-0.14 to -0.02) in poor-quality trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence does not support emergency sclerotherapy as the first-line treatment of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis when compared with vasoactive drugs, which control bleeding in 83% of patients. Therefore, endoscopic therapy might be added only in pharmacologic treatment failures.

Treatment of Variceal Bleeding

Mortality due to variceal bleeding secondary to portal hypertension has decreased significantly in the past 2 decades. Endoscopic therapy has been the mainstay of treatment for acute variceal bleeding. Variceal banding ligation has superceded injection sclerotherapy as the most popular treatment modality for acute bleeding. Multiple banding ligators are widely used with high success in restoring hemostasis. The combination of banding and sclerotherapy may be useful in preventing the early recurrence of varices and rebleeding after initial obliteration of varices. Selective vasoactive agents such as somatostatin analogs also improve the outcome of patients. Radiologic shunting has proven to be an effective salvage procedure when endoscopic treatments fail and may be a good intermediate-stage therapy while the patient is waiting for liver transplantation.

Management of bleeding in the cirrhotic patient

Important advances have been made in the management of variceal bleeding. Despite these advances, bleeding in the patient with cirrhosis remains one of the most demanding clinical challenges that a gastroenterologist or gastrointestinal surgeon may face. The aim is to identify the source of bleeding, control active bleeding and prevent rebleeding. This requires a multidisciplinary team, and the optimal management algorithm depends on the clinical circumstance of the patient and the local availability of endoscopic, radiological and surgical expertise. Injection sclerotherapy is effective in stopping acute variceal bleeding, but has the drawback of a high incidence of complications. Endoscopic variceal ligation is just as effective, and is associated with fewer complications. An overtube allows repeated introductions of the endoscope to be more tolerable for the patient and protects the airway against aspiration of blood; its use should be encouraged in patients with massive bleeding. Newer ligators can deliver multiple bands without removal of the scope but the high cost of these disposable devices limits their widespread use. Bleeding from gastric varices is even more challenging; the treatment of choice is injection with cyanoacrylate glue. To prevent rebleeding, beta-blockers are recommended for all patients with large varices (including those which have never bled). Injection sclerotherapy or band ligation, conducted at weekly intervals after the initial control of bleeding, is equally effective at obliterating varices and decreasing the risk of further hemorrhage; band ligation results in fewer complications. Other newer treatment modalities for variceal bleeding, such as somatostatin analogs, transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic shunt and liver transplantation, offer more optimal approaches to control bleeding and prevent rebleeding, but may be prohibitively expensive. Even for the most affluent communities, affordability, cost-effectiveness, and resource rationing are important considerations in management of patients with cirrhosis complicated by gastrointestinal bleeding.

Emergency sclerotherapy versus medical interventions for bleeding oesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND

Emergency sclerotherapy is widely used as a first line therapy for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis, although pharmacological treatment may stop bleeding in the majority of patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether emergency sclerotherapy is superior to pharmacological treatment for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic and manual searches were combined until April 2001.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing sclerotherapy with vasoactive treatments (vasopressin (plus minus nitroglycerin), terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide) for acute variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent reviewers identified eligible trials and extracted data. Outcome measures were failure to control bleeding, five-day treatment failure, rebleeding before other elective treatments, 42-day rebleeding, mortality before other elective treatments, 42-day mortality, number of blood transfusions, and adverse events. Data were analysed by a random effects model according to the vasoactive treatment. Sensitivity analyses included combined analysis of all the trials irrespective of the vasoactive drug, fixed effects model analyses, type of publication, methodological quality, and adequacy of generation of the randomisation list and of allocation concealment.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials including 1146 patients (pts) were identified. One trial compared sclerotherapy with vasopressin, one with terlipressin, four with somatostatin, and six with octreotide. No significant differences were found comparing sclerotherapy with each vasoactive drug for any outcomes. Combining all the trials irrespective of the vasoactive drug, risk differences (95% confidence intervals) were: failure to control bleeding (11 RCTs, 977 pts) -0.03 (-0.07 to 0.01); five-day failure rate (7 RCTs, 759 pts) -0.05 (-0.12 to 0.01); rebleeding (11 RCTs, 1082 pts) -0.01(-0.06 to 0.04); rebleeding before other elective treatments (9 RCTs, 975 pts) -0.02 (-0.06 to 0.03); mortality (12 RCTs, 1146 pts) -0.04 (-0.08 to 0.00); mortality before other elective treatments (5 RCTs, 474 pts) -0.02 (-0.07 to 0.04); transfused blood units (7 RCTs, 793 pts) (weighted mean difference) -0.17 (-0.52 to 0.19). Adverse events (11 RCTs, 1082 pts) and serious adverse events (5 RCTs, 602 pts) were significantly more frequent with sclerotherapy: risk differences 0.08 (0.02 to 0.14) and 0.05 (0.02 to 0.08), respectively. Results were consistent across all the other sensitivity analyses.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing evidence to support the use of emergency sclerotherapy for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis as the first, single treatment when compared with vasoactive drugs.

Multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing different schedules of somatostatin in the treatment of acute variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The dose of somatostatin used for variceal bleeding (250 microg/h) is lower than that proven to effectively decrease portal pressure and azygos blood flow (500 microg/h). Moreover, i.v. somatostatin boluses have greater effects than continuous infusions. The aim of this study was to investigate whether higher doses of somatostatin and repeated boluses may increase its efficacy in controlling variceal bleeding.

METHODS

A total of 174 patients with acute variceal bleeding were randomized to receive for 48 h: (A) one 250 microg bolus +250 microg/h infusion; (B) three 250 microg boluses +250 microg/h infusion; (C) three 250 microg boluses +500 microg/h infusion.

RESULTS

The three schedules of somatostatin were equally effective in controlling variceal bleeding (73, 75 and 81%, respectively, NS). Multivariate analysis showed active bleeding at endoscopy (n=75) as the only predictor of failure to control bleeding. In these patients, the 500 microg/h infusion dose achieved a higher rate of control of bleeding (82 vs. 60%, P<0.05), less transfusions (3.7 +/- 2.7 vs. 2.5 +/- 2.3 UU, P=0.07) and better survival (93 vs. 70%, P<0.05) than schedules A/B.

CONCLUSIONS

Somatostatin is highly effective in controlling variceal bleeding. Patients with active bleeding at emergency endoscopy may benefit from higher doses of somatostatin infusion.

Management of portal hypertension after variceal hemorrhage

Each variceal bleed is associated with 20% to 30% risk of dying. Management of portal hypertension after a bleed consists of (1) control of bleeding and (2) prevention of rebleeding. Effective control of bleeding can be achieved either pharmacologically by administering somatostatin or octreotide or endoscopically via sclerotherapy or variceal band ligation. In practice, both pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy are used concomitantly. Rebleeding can be prevented by endoscopic obliteration of varices. In this setting, variceal ligation is the preferred endoscopic modality. B-blockade is as effective as endoscopic therapy and, in combination, the two modalities may be additive.

Octreotide potentiates PKC-dependent vasoconstrictors in portal-hypertensive and control rats

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The effect of octreotide on vascular tone in the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) was studied in portal-hypertensive (portal vein-ligated) and sham-operated rats.

METHODS

In vitro-perfused SMA vascular beds were tested for the cumulative dose-response to octreotide at baseline conditions and after preconstriction with different vasoconstrictors (alpha1-agonist methoxamine, endothelin [ET-1], phorbol ester [PdBu], and potassium chloride [KCl]).

RESULTS

Octreotide did not affect baseline perfusion pressures (without preconstriction). alpha1-Adrenergic-, ET-1-, and PdBu-, but not KCl-, induced vasoconstriction was significantly potentiated by octreotide. This effect was dose-dependent and not different in portal vein-ligated and sham rats. Amplification of alpha1-adrenergic vasoconstriction by octreotide was significantly enhanced by nitric oxide inhibition (N(W)-nitro-L-arginine, 10(-4) mol/L) as well as by removal of the endothelium, and was completely suppressed by inhibition of protein kinase C (calphostin C, 1 micromol/L), phospholipase A2 (quinacrine, 5 micromol/L), and cyclooxygenase (indomethacin, 20 micromol/L).

CONCLUSIONS

Not directly, but in the presence of vasoconstrictors involving activation of protein kinase C, octreotide exerts a local vasoconstrictive effect on vascular smooth muscle of SMA. This potentiation is equipotent in portal vein-ligated and sham rats, immediate in onset, and mediated via phospholipase A2 and cyclooxygenase-derived prostanoids. This indicates that in preprandial conditions octreotide enhances the vasoconstrictive effect of dependent vasoconstrictors.

Early administration of vapreotide for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

In patients with cirrhosis, pharmacologic or endoscopic treatment may control variceal bleeding. However, the effects of early administration of a somatostatin analogue followed by endoscopic treatment are unknown.

METHODS

We studied the effects of treatment with vapreotide, a somatostatin analogue, begun before endoscopic treatment in 227 patients with cirrhosis who were hospitalized for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The patients were randomly assigned to receive vapreotide (a 50-microg intravenous bolus followed by an infusion at a rate of 50 microg per hour for five days) or placebo within a mean (+/-SD) of 2.3+/-1.5 hours after admission. All the patients received endoscopic treatment a mean of 2.6+/-3.3 hours after the infusion was begun. After the exclusion of 31 patients whose bleeding was not caused by portal hypertension, there were 98 patients in each group.

RESULTS

At the time of endoscopy, active bleeding was evident in 28 of 91 patients in the vapreotide group (31 percent), as compared with 43 of 93 patients in the placebo group (46 percent) (P=0.03). During the five-day infusion, the primary objective--survival and control of bleeding--was achieved in 65 of 98 patients in the vapreotide group (66 percent) as compared with 49 of 98 patients in the placebo group (50 percent) (P=0.02). The patients in the vapreotide group received significantly fewer blood transfusions (2.0+/-2.2 vs. 2.8+/-2.8 units, P=0.04). Overall mortality rates at 42 days were not significantly different in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with cirrhosis and variceal bleeding, the combination of vapreotide and endoscopic treatment is more effective than endoscopic treatment alone as a method of controlling acute bleeding. However, the use of combination therapy does not affect mortality rates at 42 days.

Multicenter randomized controlled trial of terlipressin versus sclerotherapy in the treatment of acute variceal bleeding: the TEST study

Failure to control bleeding and early rebleeding account for the high mortality associated with variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis. We compared endoscopic sclerotherapy to terlipressin, a drug that effectively controls acute bleeding while reducing in-hospital mortality. This multicenter randomized controlled trial included 219 cirrhotic patients admitted for endoscopy-proven acute variceal bleeding and randomized to receive repeated injections of terlipressin during 6 days (n = 105) or emergency sclerotherapy (n = 114). Success was defined as obtaining control of bleeding (24-hour bleeding-free period during the first 48 hours) and lack of early rebleeding (any further bleeding from initial control to 5 days later) and survival during the study. Both groups were similar at inclusion. Failure rate for terlipressin was 33% and 32% for sclerotherapy (not significant [NS]). Early rebleeding was responsible for 43% and 44% of failures, respectively. This high efficacy was observed in both Child-Pugh class A + B and Child-Pugh class C patients. Both treatments were similar regarding transfusion requirements, in-hospital stay, and 6-week mortality (26 vs. 19 patients). Side effects appeared in 20% of patients receiving terlipressin and in 30% of those on sclerotherapy (P =.06); being serious in 4% and 7%, respectively (NS). In conclusion, terlipressin and sclerotherapy are equally highly effective therapies achieving the initial control of variceal bleeding and preventing early rebleeding. Both treatments are safe, but terlipressin is better tolerated. Therefore, terlipressin may represent a first-line treatment in acute variceal bleeding until the administration of elective therapy, especially in hospitals where a skilled endoscopist is not available 24 hours a day.

Somatostatin or octreotide in acute variceal bleeding

In patients with cirrhosis, somatostatin or octreotide administration is followed by a transient decrease in the hepatic venous pressure gradient and azygos blood flow. Although no clear-cut changes in variceal pressure are observed and the exact mechanisms of acute hemodynamic changes induced by somatostatin or its derivatives are still unknown, this provided the rationale for its use in patients with variceal hemorrhage. The only known sustained hemodynamic effect of octreotide is to prevent increases in hepatic venous gradient or azygos blood flow in response to food intake. Somatostatin infusion can be as effective as sclerotherapy in the initial control of bleeding esophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis and is associated with fewer complications. Octreotide also seems to be as effective as endoscopic therapy in the control of acute variceal bleeding, although larger studies should be performed before its efficacy and safety profile can be fully evaluated. The combination of somatostatin or long-acting analogues to endoscopic therapy has recently been delineated as one of the most promising approaches in these patients. Early somatostatin administration with repeat boluses, starting several hours before sclerotherapy is combined, eases the endoscopic procedure and reduces bleeding control failure rate. Although two studies also showed that octreotide, when started at the time of sclerotherapy or variceal banding, also improves bleeding control, a conclusion on octreotide use in these patients is premature. Optimal administration schedules and doses of somatostatin or octreotide are still unknown. The safety of octreotide in patients with variceal bleeding, which has recently been challenged, should be assessed in larger trials. Recent data suggesting that octreotide combination to beta-blockers or sclerotherapy may represent a useful approach for long-term prevention of rebleeding in these patients will have to be confirmed.

[Sclerotherapy versus somatostatin in the treatment of upper digestive hemorrhage caused by rupture of esophageal varices]

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of somatostatin versus endoscopic sclerotherapy in the management of digestive bleeding caused by rupture of esophageal varices. Forty patients were evaluated; 21 were randomly assigned to receive somatostatin (initial 250 micrograms followed by a 48-hour continuous infusion of 250 micrograms/h and 250 micrograms 6/6 h bolus in the first 24 hours) and 19 to receive endoscopic sclerotherapy with ethanolamine oleate 5%. The patients were evaluated after 48 hours and after 7 days of treatment. Both groups of patients were similar in sex, age, gravity of the hemorrhage and liver dysfunction. Therapeutic failure occurred in 26.3% and 35.7% in the group of endoscopic sclerotherapy (48 h and 7 days respectively), and in 23.8% and 21.4% in the group of somatostatin. The need of blood transfusion (3.38 U in the group of endoscopic sclerotherapy and 2.42 U in the group of somatostatin) and the mortality rate (31.6% in the group of endoscopic sclerotherapy and 28.6% in the group of somatostatin) were also similar (P > 0.05). The authors conclude that somatostatin is as effective as endoscopic sclerotherapy and that it should be considered in the treatment of acute esophageal variceal bleeding.

Drug treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices

At the time of diagnosis of cirrhosis, varices are present in about 60% of decompensated and 30% of compensated patients. The risk factors for the first episode of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients are the severity of liver dysfunction, a large size of the varices and the presence of endoscopic red colour signs, but only a third of patients who suffer variceal haemorrhage demonstrate the above risk factors. The only treatment that does not require sophisticated equipment or the skills of a specialist, and is immediately available, is vasoactive drug therapy. Hence, drug therapy should be considered to be the initial treatment of choice and can be administered while the patient is transferred to hospital, as has been done in one recent study. Moreover, drug therapy is no longer considered to be only a 'stop-gap' therapy until definitive endoscopic therapy is performed. Several recent trials have reported an efficacy similar to that of emergency sclerotherapy in the control of variceal bleeding. Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that those patients with high variceal or portal pressure are likely to continue to bleed or re-bleed early, implying that prolonged therapy lowering the portal pressure over several days may be the optimal treatment. Pharmacological treatment with beta-blockers is safe, effective and the standard long-term treatment for the prevention of recurrence of variceal bleeding. The combination of beta-blockers with isosorbide-5-mononitrate needs further testing in randomized controlled trials. The use of haemodynamic targets for the reduction of the HVPG response needs further study, and surrogate markers of the pressure response need evaluation. Ligation has recently been compared with beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis, but there is as yet no good evidence to recommend banding for primary prophylaxis if beta-blockers can be given.

Esophageal varices. I. Clinical presentation, medical therapy, and endoscopic therapy

The last half century has witnessed great advances in the understanding of the pathogenesis and natural history of portal hypertension in cirrhotics. Several pharmacologic and endoscopic techniques have been developed for the treatment of portal hypertension. The use of these agents in a given patient must be based on an understanding of the stage in the natural history of the disease and the relative efficacy and safety of the available treatment options.

Role of vasoactive drugs in the treatment of bleeding oesophageal varices

Recent advances in the knowledge of the pathophysiology of portal hypertension has opened new indications for the pharmacologic treatment of acute variceal bleeding. Treatment with vasoactive agents is immediately available, easy to use and can be considered as definitive or adjunctive to endoscopic therapy. The data from randomised trials of vasoactive drug treatment for acute variceal bleeding are reviewed, using meta-analysis where applicable. The use of vasopressin has been decreased as a consequence of its questionable efficacy and its high incidence of side effects. Terlipressin is the only drug that has been shown to improve survival, albeit in small trials and there are insufficient data of its use over 5 days. Somatostatin has been shown to have similar efficacy with terlipressin with significantly less side effects. The demonstrated efficacy of octreotide in acute variceal bleeding is less than terlipressin and somatostatin and it cannot be considered as drug of first choice. Somatostatin combined with sclerotherapy represents the optimal therapy today as this combination has been shown to be more effective than sclerotherapy alone and it is safe given over 5 days.