Long-term follow up of a randomized, controlled trial on prophylactic sclerotherapy of small oesophageal varices in liver cirrhosis

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Endoscopic treatment of esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension with a six-week mortality rate of approximately 20%. Patients with medium- or large-sized varices can be treated for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding using two strategies: non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL). Both treatments are equally effective. Patients with acute variceal bleeding are critically ill patients. The available data suggest that vasoactive drugs, combined with endoscopic therapy and antibiotics, are the best treatment strategy with EVL being the endoscopic procedure of choice. In cases of uncontrolled bleeding, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered stents are recommended. Approximately 60% of the patients experience rebleeding, with a mortality rate of 30%. Secondary prophylaxis should start on day six following the initial bleeding episode. The combination of NSBBs and EVL is the recommended management, whereas TIPS with PTFE-covered stents are the preferred option in patients who fail endoscopic and pharmacologic treatment. Apart from injection sclerotherapy and EVL, other endoscopic procedures, including tissue adhesives, endoloops, endoscopic clipping and argon plasma coagulation, have been used in the management of esophageal varices. However, their efficacy and safety, compared to standard endoscopic treatment, remain to be further elucidated. There are safety issues accompanying endoscopic techniques with aspiration pneumonia occurring at a rate of approximately 2.5%. In conclusion, future research is needed to improve treatment strategies, including novel endoscopic techniques with better efficacy, lower cost, and fewer adverse events.

Primary prevention of bleeding from esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is a life threatening situation with mortality rates of at least 20%. Prophylactic treatment with non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) is recommended for patients with small varices that have not bled but with increased risk for bleeding. The recommended treatment strategies on primary prevention of variceal bleeding in patients with medium and large-sized varices are NSBBs or endoscopic band ligation. Nitrates, shunt surgery and sclerotherapy are not recommended in this setting. In this review, the most recent data on prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding are presented. Available data derived from randomized-controlled trials suggest both treatment strategies, and according to Baveno V consensus in portal hypertension “the choice of treatment should be based on local resources and expertise, patient preference and characteristics, side-effects and contra-indications”.

Banding ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prevention in oesophageal varices in adults

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are used as a first-line treatment for primary prevention in patients with medium- to high-risk oesophageal varices. The effect of non-selective beta-blockers on mortality is debated and many patients experience adverse events. Trials on banding ligation versus non-selective beta-blockers for patients with oesophageal varices and no history of bleeding have reached equivocal results.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of banding ligation versus non-selective beta-blockers as primary prevention in adult patients with endoscopically verified oesophageal varices that have never bled, irrespective of the underlying liver disease (cirrhosis or other cause).

SEARCH METHODS

In Febuary 2012, electronic searches (the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded) and manual searches (including scanning of reference lists in relevant articles and conference proceedings) were performed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials were included irrespective of publication status, blinding, and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently extracted data. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. Intention-to-treat random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses were performed. Results were presented as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with I(2) statistic values as a measure of intertrial heterogeneity. Subgroup, sensitivity, regression, and trial sequential analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the overall results, risks of bias, sources of intertrial heterogeneity, and risks of random errors.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen randomised trials on banding ligation versus non-selective beta-blockers for primary prevention in oesophageal varices were included. Most trials specified that only patients with large or high-risk oesophageal varices were included. Bias control was unclear in most trials. In total, 176 of 731 (24%) of the patients randomised to banding ligation and 177 of 773 (23%) of patients randomised to non-selective beta-blockers died. The difference was not statistically significant in a random-effects meta-analysis (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.30; I(2) = 0%). There was no evidence of bias or small study effects in regression analysis (Egger's test P = 0.997). Trial sequential analysis showed that the heterogeneity-adjusted low-bias trial relative risk estimate required an information size of 3211 patients, that none of the interventions showed superiority, and that the limits of futility have not been reached. When all trials were included, banding ligation reduced upper gastrointestinal bleeding and variceal bleeding compared with non-selective beta-blockers (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91; I(2) = 19% and RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.98; I(2) = 31% respectively). The beneficial effect of banding ligation on bleeding was not confirmed in subgroup analyses of trials with adequate randomisation or full paper articles. Bleeding-related mortality was not different in the two intervention arms (29/567 (5.1%) versus 37/585 (6.3%); RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.39; I(2) = 0%). Both interventions were associated with adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found a beneficial effect of banding ligation on primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patient with oesophageal varices. The effect on bleeding did not reduce mortality. Additional evidence is needed to determine whether our results reflect that non-selective beta-blockers have other beneficial effects than on bleeding.

Oesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients: from variceal screening to primary prophylaxis of the first oesophageal variceal bleeding

Bleeding from oesophageal varices is still a lethal complication in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Approximately 5-10% of patients with cirrhosis will develop oesophageal varices per year, and about 25-30% of cirrhotic patients with oesophageal varices and without previous variceal haemorrhage will bleed from ruptured varices. To date, data on preventing the formation/growth of oesophageal varices (preprimary prophylaxis) are conflicting, with insufficient evidence to use β-blockers. There is evidence for the need for primary prophylaxis, and both β-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation have shown the same efficacy in preventing first bleeding, but which one to prefer is still controversial. The present article reviews the established and potential therapeutic strategies for preventing the development and rupture of oesophageal varices.

Variceal bleeding: consensus meeting report from the Brazilian Society of Hepatology

In the last decades, several improvements in the management of variceal bleeding have resulted in a significant decrease in morbidity and mortality of patients with cirrhosis and bleeding varices. Progress in the multidisciplinary approach to these patients has led to a better management of this disease by critical care physicians, hepatologists, gastroenterologists, endoscopists, radiologists and surgeons. In this respect, the Brazilian Society of Hepatology has, recently, sponsored a consensus meeting in order to draw evidence-based recommendations on the management of these difficult-to-treat subjects. An organizing committee comprised of four people was elected by the Governing Board and was responsible to invite 27 researchers from distinct regions of the country to make a systematic review of the subject and to present topics related to variceal bleeding, including prevention, diagnosis, management and treatment, according to evidence-based medicine. After the meeting, all participants met together for discussion of the topics and the elaboration of the aforementioned recommendations. The organizing committee was responsible for writing the final document. The meeting was held at Salvador, May 6th, 2009 and the present manuscript is the summary of the systematic review that was presented during the meeting, organized in topics, followed by the recommendations of the Brazilian Society of Hepatology.

Overview of the methods and therapies for the primary prevention of variceal bleeding

Patients with cirrhosis develop varices at a rate of 5% per year, and a third of patients with high-risk varices will bleed. The mortality associated with variceal haemorrhage is typically 20%, and still exceeds that of myocardial infarction. Current options to prevent the first variceal bleed include noncardioselective beta-blockers or variceal band ligation. In patients with medium-to-large esophageal varices, both therapies reduce the risk of bleeding by 50% or more. The choice of therapy should take into account patient choice and local availability; although for most patients drug therapy is the preferred first-line treatment. There has been recent interest in carvedilol, with promising initial data. Further studies are necessary before universal recommendation. There is no role for drug therapy in patients without varices, and the use of beta-blockers for patients with small varices is controversial.

The budget impact of endoscopic screening for esophageal varices in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of screening for esophageal varices in cirrhosis remains uncertain. Previous analyses found that screening with upper endoscopy (EGD) may not be cost effective versus empiric beta-blocker (BB) therapy. However, these models were conducted before advances in variceal screening, including capsule endoscopy (CE), and they did not measure the budget impact (vs cost-effectiveness) of variceal screening.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the managed care budget impact of variceal screening strategies.

DESIGN

Budget impact model.

SETTING

Hypothetical managed care organization with 1 million covered lives.

PATIENTS

Patients with compensated cirrhosis.

INTERVENTIONS

Compared 5 strategies: (1) empiric BB, (2) screening EGD followed by BB if varices present (EGD --> BB), (3) EGD followed by endoscopic band ligation if varices present (EGD --> EBL), (4) CE followed by BB if varices present (CE --> BB), and (5) CE followed by EBL if varices present (CE --> EBL).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

Per-member per-month cost.

RESULTS

BB was the least expensive, and CE --> EBL was the most expensive. Substituting CE --> BB in lieu of BB cost each member an additional $0.20 per month to subsidize. Compared with CE --> BB, both EGD-based strategies were more expensive. However, CE was not viable in managed care organizations capable of reducing the cost of endoscopy below $410, unless the cost of CE was reduced in lockstep.

LIMITATIONS

Data on CE remain limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening for varices may have an acceptable budget impact but is highly sensitive to local costs of EGD and CE. In managed care organizations willing to subsidize EBL for variceal prophylaxis, it is inefficient to screen with CE compared with EGD.

Prevention of the development of varices and first portal hypertensive bleeding episode

Variceal bleeding is a serious complication in patients with cirrhosis. Although bleeding related mortality rates have fallen recently, it continues to be amongst the leading causes of death. Cirrhotics should be screened for varices at diagnosis. Data on preventing formation/growth of oesophageal varices (pre-primary prophylaxis) are conflicting, with insufficient evidence to use beta-blockers. In order to prevent first bleeding, there is strong evidence in patients with medium/large size oesophageal varices that either non-selective beta-blockers or banding ligation can be used. Banding is superior with respect to bleeding but mortality is similar. Non-selective beta-blockers should remain first line treatment being effective, cheap and without serious complications. In contrast banding ligation is more expensive, requires specialised staff, cannot prevent bleeding from portal hypertensive gastropathy and can cause iatrogenic bleeding. Patients with small varices, particularly if they have progressive liver disease also benefit from beta-blockers, but fewer studies confirm this therapeutic approach.

Dental management of patients with end-stage liver disease

This article presents a review of end-stage chronic liver disease (cirrhosis) with emphasis on the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and complications of cirrhosis, along with their medical and surgical management and prognosis. This article also discusses the evaluation and management of the dental patients with cirrhosis, including the implications decreased hepatic function has on drugs commonly used in dental treatment.

Endoscopic screening for esophageal varices in cirrhosis: Is it ever cost effective?

Current guidelines for the management of patients with compensated cirrhosis recommend universal screening endoscopy followed by prophylactic beta-blocker therapy to prevent initial hemorrhage in those found to have esophageal varices. However, the cost-effectiveness of this recommendation has not been established. Our objective was to determine whether screening endoscopy is cost-effective compared with empiric medical management in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Decision analysis with Markov modeling was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of 6 competing strategies: (1) universal screening endoscopy (EGD) followed by beta-blocker (BB) therapy (EGD-->BB) if varices are present, (2) EGD followed by endoscopic band ligation (EBL) (EGD-->EBL) if varices are present, (3) selective screening endoscopy (sEGD) in high risk patients followed by BB therapy if varices are present (sEGD-->BB), (4) selective screening endoscopy followed by EBL (sEGD-->EBL) if varices are present, (5) empiric beta-blocker therapy in all patients, and (6) no prophylactic therapy ("Do Nothing"). Cost estimates were from a third-party payer perspective. The main outcome measure was the cost per initial variceal hemorrhage prevented. The "Do Nothing" strategy was the least expensive yet least effective approach. Compared with the "Do Nothing" strategy, the empiric beta-blocker strategy cost an incremental $12,408 per additional variceal bleed prevented. Compared with the empiric beta-blocker strategy, in turn, both the EGD-->BB and the EGD-->EBL strategies cost over $175,000 more per additional bleed prevented. The sEGD-->BB and sEGD-->EBL strategies were more expensive and less effective than the empiric beta-blocker strategy. In conclusion, empiric beta-blocker therapy for the primary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage is a cost-effective measure, as the use of screening endoscopy to guide therapy adds significant cost with only marginal increase in effectiveness.

Ultrasonographic and histologic evaluation of medial and middle patellar ligaments in exercised horses following injection with ethanolamine oleate and 2% iodine in almond oil

OBJECTIVE

To describe the ultrasonographic and quantitative histologic effect of injecting 2% iodine in almond oil (IAO) and ethanolamine oleate (EO) in the medial and middle patellar ligaments of horses and to determine whether a difference in response exists between IAO and EO treatment.

ANIMALS

10 healthy horses.

PROCEDURE

In 5 horses, the medial and middle patellar ligaments of 1 limb were injected with EO, whereas IAO was injected in the medial and middle patellar ligaments of another 5 horses. Ultrasonographic evaluation was performed on the experimental and control limb before injection of IAO and EO and prior to euthanasia to determine cross-sectional area and evaluate fiber pattern. The patellar ligaments were harvested 2 weeks after injection and examined histologically to evaluate the inflammatory response, fibroplasia, and chondroid metaplasia.

RESULTS

Injection of the patellar ligaments with IAO resulted in a greater increase in cross-sectional area on ultrasonography than EO. Both agents caused a decrease in echogenicity of the ligament. Histologically, significantly greater infiltration of inflammatory cells and fibroplasia developed after injection with IAO, compared with EO. Both agents resulted in significantly greater fibroplasia relative to control specimens.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Injection of the medial and middle patellar ligaments with IAO induces more severe inflammation and fibroplasia than EO. Maturation of the inflammatory and fibrous response may contribute to resolution or attenuation of upward fixation of the patella by subsequent stiffening of the ligaments.