Comparison of endoscopic ligation and propranolol for the primary prevention of variceal bleeding

Endoscopic variceal ligation versus propranolol for the primary prevention of oesophageal variceal bleeding in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: an open-label, two-centre, randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This randomised trial aimed to address whether endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) or propranolol (PPL) is more effective at preventing initial oesophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

DESIGN

Patients with HCC and medium-to-large oesophageal varices (EVs) but without previous EVB were randomised to receive EVL (every 3-4 weeks until variceal eradication) or PPL (up to 320 mg daily) at a 1:1 ratio. Long-term follow-up data on EVB, other upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), non-bleeding liver decompensation, overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) were analysed using competing risk regression.

RESULTS

Between June 2011 and April 2021, 144 patients were randomised to receive EVL (n=72) or PPL (n=72). In the EVL group, 7 patients experienced EVB, and 30 died; in the PPL group, 19 patients had EVB, and 40 died. The EVL group had a lower cumulative incidence of EVB (Gray's test, p=0.009) than its counterpart, with no mortality difference (Gray's test, p=0.085). For patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage A/B, EVL was better than PPL in reducing EVB (p<0.001) and mortality (p=0.003). For patients beyond BCLC stage B, between-group outcomes were similar. Other UGIB, non-bleeding liver decompensation and AEs did not differ between groups. A competing risk regression model confirmed the prognostic value of EVL.

CONCLUSION

EVL is superior to PPL in preventing initial EVB in patients with HCC. The benefits of EVL on EVB and OS may be limited to patients with BCLC stage A/B and not to those with BCLC stage C/D.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01970748.

Prognostic impact of worsening of esophageal varices after balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) is widely performed for treating gastric varices (GVs). However, worsening of esophageal varices (EVs) can be observed after BRTO. This study aimed to investigate the impact of EV worsening on prognosis after BRTO.

METHODS

Overall, 258 patients who underwent initial BRTO for GV treatment between January 2004 and May 2019 at 12 institutions were retrospectively registered.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 235 patients (91.1%). Based on the exclusion criteria, 37 patients were excluded, and 198 were evaluated. The cumulative worsening rates of EVs at 1, 2, and 3 years were 39.0%, 59.4%, and 68.4%, respectively. In the univariate Cox proportional hazards model, sex, EV size, history of EV treatment, left gastric vein dilatation, platelet count, aspartate transaminase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), total bilirubin, albumin, albumin-bilirubin score, prothrombin time-international normalized ratio, fibrosis-4 index, AST to platelet ratio index, and spleen width were significantly associated with worsening of EV after BRTO. Multivariate analysis showed that sex (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.86; P = 0.04), left gastric vein dilatation (aHR 1.90; 95% CI 1.17-3.10; P = 0.01), ALT (aHR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00-1.03; P = 0.02), albumin (aHR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43-0.87; P < 0.01), and spleen width (aHR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.03; P < 0.01) were independent risk factors for worsening of EV after BRTO. Patients with EV worsening within 1 year after BRTO had a significantly worse prognosis than the other patients (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Early worsening of EV after BRTO was associated with poor prognosis after BRTO.

Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis: A comparison of different strategies

Patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices bleed at a yearly rate of 5%-15%, and, when variceal hemorrhage develops, mortality reaches 20%. Patients are deemed at high risk of bleeding when they present with medium or large-sized varices, when they have red signs on varices of any size and when they are classified as Child-Pugh C and have varices of any size. In order to avoid variceal bleeding and death, individuals with cirrhosis at high risk of bleeding must undergo primary prophylaxis, for which currently recommended strategies are the use of traditional non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) (i.e., propranolol or nadolol), carvedilol (a NSBB with additional alpha-adrenergic blocking effect) or endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL). The superiority of one of these alternatives over the others is controversial. While EVL might be superior to pharmacological therapy regarding the prevention of the first bleeding episode, either traditional NSBBs or carvedilol seem to play a more prominent role in mortality reduction, probably due to their capacity of preventing other complications of cirrhosis through the decrease in portal hypertension. A sequential strategy, in which patients unresponsive to pharmacological therapy would be submitted to endoscopic treatment, or the combination of pharmacological and endoscopic strategies might be beneficial and deserve further investigation.

Usefulness of Endoscopic Ultrasound with the Jelly-Filling Method for Esophageal Varices

Although the importance of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for esophageal varices (EVs) has been demonstrated, it is difficult to obtain sufficient EUS images with the water-filling method because of poor water stagnation in the esophagus. In this study on EVs, we aimed to evaluate the usefulness of the jelly-filling method for EUS. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS for EVs were included. The quality of EUS images, the diagnostic ability of the presence of blood vessels inside and outside the esophageal wall, and the procedure time were compared between the jelly-filling and water-filling methods. Thirty cases were analyzed (jelly-filling method in 13 and water-filling method in 17). The EUS image quality score was significantly higher in the jelly-filling method (jelly vs. water; three points vs. two points, p < 0.001). Additionally, EUS image quality scores in both nonexperts and experts were significantly higher in the jelly-filling method. The diagnostic ability of the presence of perforation veins was significantly higher in the jelly-filling method (jelly vs. water; 100% vs. 52.9%, p = 0.004). However, the procedure time was significantly longer in the jelly-filling method (p = 0.024). In conclusion, EUS using the jelly-filling method for EVs provided sufficient image quality.

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.

Systemic treatment of HCC in special populations

Recent years have seen significant progress in the systemic treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), including the advent of immunotherapy. While several large phase III trials have provided the evidence for a multi-line treatment paradigm, they have focused on a highly selected group of patients by excluding potentially confounding comorbidities. As a result, high quality evidence for the systemic treatment of HCC in patients with various comorbidities is missing. This review summarises current knowledge on the use of approved medicines in patients with HIV, autoimmune disease, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, fibrolamellar HCC, mixed HCC-cholangiocarcinoma, decompensated cirrhosis (Child-Pugh B and C), a significant bleeding history, vascular invasion or portal vein thrombosis, as well as the elderly, those on haemodialysis, and those after solid organ transplantation. The article highlights relevant knowledge gaps and current clinical challenges. To improve the safety and efficacy of HCC treatment in these subgroups, future trials should be designed to specifically include patients with comorbidities.

Automated and real-time validation of gastroesophageal varices under esophagogastroduodenoscopy using a deep convolutional neural network: a multicenter retrospective study (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Rupture of gastroesophageal varices is the most common fatal adverse event of cirrhosis. EGD is considered the criterion standard for diagnosis and risk stratification of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding. The aim of this study was to train and validate a real-time deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) system, named ENDOANGEL, for diagnosing gastroesophageal varices and predicting the risk of rupture.

METHODS

After training with 8566 images of endoscopic gastroesophageal varices from 3021 patients and 6152 images of normal esophagus/stomach from 3168 patients, ENDOANGEL was also tested with independent images and videos. It was also compared with endoscopists in several aspects.

RESULTS

ENDOANGEL, in contrast with endoscopists, displayed higher accuracy of 97.00% and 92.00% in terms of detecting esophageal varices (EVs) and gastric varices (GVs) in an image contest (97.00% vs 93.94% , P < .01; 92.00% vs 84.43%, P < .05). It also surpassed endoscopists for red color signs of EVs and red spots of GVs (84.21% vs 73.45%, P < .01; 85.26% vs 77.52%, P < .05). Moreover, ENDOANGEL achieved comparable performance in the determination of size, form, color, and bleeding signs. ENDOANGEL also had good performance in making treatment suggestions. With regard to predicting risk factors in multicenter videos, ENDOANGEL showed great stability.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that DCNNs were precise in detecting both EVs and GVs and performed excellently in uncovering the endoscopic risk factors of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding. Thus, the application of DCNNs will assist endoscopists in evaluating gastroesophageal varices more objectively and precisely. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR1900023970.).

Long-term observation in patients with esophageal varices after endoscopic variceal ligation accompanied with 24-hour pH monitoring

AIM

Esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) is usually carried out to decrease the risk of hemorrhage. Several complications have been reported with the procedure, including bleeding from ligation-induced esophageal ulcers or heartburn. However, there is scant evidence for gastroesophageal reflux caused by EVL. The aim of this study was to assess 24-h pH monitoring in the esophagogastric junction before and after EVL and the bleeding rate for 18 months.

METHODS

We undertook this single-center prospective trial in Kitasato University Hospital (Sagamihara, Japan). We included patients with cirrhosis who were Child-Pugh classification A or B, without uncontrollable hepatocellular carcinoma, and had F2 or larger esophageal varices, and/or were red color sign (RC) positive. The study period was from July 2012 through September 2017 for 32 patients enrolled in this study and followed up until March 2019.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were: median Child-Pugh score, 6; and mean age, 64.3 years. Before and after EVL, the median 24-h under pH 4 holding time percentages of all patients were 0.6% (range, 0-5.6%) and 0.95% (range, 0-50.6%), respectively, without a significant difference (P = 0.107). We could not find any G3 or G4 adverse events during this study, and 75% of the patients who had already suffered from moderate gastroesophageal reflux became worse after EVL (P = 0.18) and required antacid therapies. There were no patients with hemorrhage from esophageal varices.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal variceal ligation for esophageal varices did not significantly change gastroesophageal reflux. Therefore, acid suppressive therapy might be unnecessary for patients who do not suffer from gastroesophageal reflux after EVL.

Carvedilol Combined With Ivabradine Improves Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction, Clinical Progression, and Survival in Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) refers to impaired cardiac diastolic relaxation and may be improved by targeted heart rate reduction (THR). The authors evaluated whether a combination of carvedilol and ivabradine, an If channel blocker that reduces heart rate without affecting blood pressure, could improve LVDD and outcomes in cirrhosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

THR was defined as heart rate reduction to 55 to 65 beats per minute. Of 260 patients with cirrhosis, 189 (72%) with LVDD were randomized to THR [group (Gr.)A; n=94; carvedilol±ivabradine)] or standard care (Gr.B; n=95; no β-blockers) and followed for 12 months.

RESULTS

In Gr.A, THR was achieved at 4 weeks in 88 (93%) patients (responders, R): 48 (61.5%) with carvedilol alone and 40 (86.9%) of 46 patients with additional ivabradine. In Gr.A, LVDD reversed in 16 (20.5%) and improved from grade 2 to 1 in 34 (35.4%)], whereas in Gr.B, it progressed from grade 1 to 2 in 10 (10.5%) patients. At 12 months, 21 (11.1%) patients died, 6 (14%) in Gr.A and 15 (18%) in Gr.B (P=0.240), but no mortality was seen in those who had persistent THR at 1 year (n=78; P=0.000). In multivariate analysis, model for end-stage liver disease [hazard ratio (HR), 1.52; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.22-2.75; P=0.034] and E-wave transmitral/early diastolic mitral annular velocity (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.23-2.42; P=0.048) predicted 1-year mortality. Nonresponders had an increased mortality risk (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P=0.046) independent of age, gender, and baseline model for end-stage liver disease. Levels of norepinephrine, N terminal brain natriuretic peptide, plasma renin activity, and aldosterone were reduced (P<0.01) in responders. More patients in Gr.B developed acute kidney injury (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.8-10.5; P=0.027) and encephalopathy (odds ratio, 6.6; 95% CI, 1.9-9.7; P=0.040).

CONCLUSIONS

Ivabradine combined with carvedilol improves LVDD, achieves THR more often and reduces risk of encephalopathy, acute kidney injury with improved survival in patients with cirrhosis.

Second-look endoscopy-guided therapy under sedation prevents early rebleeding after variceal ligation for acute variceal bleeding

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether second-look endoscopy (SLE)-guided therapy could be used to prevent post-endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) early bleeding.

METHODS

Consecutive cirrhotic patients with large esophageal varices (EV) receiving successful EVL for acute variceal bleeding (AVB) or secondary prophylaxis were enrolled. The patients were randomized into a SLE group and a non-SLE group (NSLE) 10 days after EVL. Additional endoscopic interventions as well as proton pump inhibitors and octreotide administration were applied based on the SLE findings. The post-EVL early rebleeding and mortality rates were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 252 patients were included in the final analysis. Post-EVL early rebleeding (13.5% vs 4.8%, P = 0.016) and bleeding-caused mortality (4.8% vs 0%, P = 0.013) were more frequently observed in the NSLE group than in the SLE group. However, post-EVL early rebleeding and mortality rates were reduced by SLE in patients receiving EVL for AVB only but not in those receiving secondary prophylaxis. Patients with Child-Pugh classification B to C at randomization (hazard ratio [HR] 8.77, P = 0.034), AVB at index EVL (HR 3.62, P = 0.003), discontinuation of non-selective β-blocker after randomization (HR 4.68, P = 0.001) and non-SLE (HR 2.63, P = 0.046) were more likely to have post-EVL early rebleeding. No serious adverse events occurred during SLE.

CONCLUSION

SLE-guided therapy reduces post-EVL early rebleeding and mortality rates in cirrhotic patients with large EV receiving EVL for AVB.

Biomaterials in Gastroenterology: A Critical Overview

In spite of the large diversity of diagnostic and interventional devices associated with gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, there is little information on the impact of the biomaterials (metals, polymers) contained in these devices upon body tissues and, indirectly, upon the treatment outcomes. Other biomaterials for gastroenterology, such as adhesives and certain hemostatic agents, have been investigated to a greater extent, but the information is fragmentary. Much of this situation is due to the paucity of details disclosed by the manufacturers of the devices. Moreover, for most of the applications in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, there are no studies available on the biocompatibility of the device materials when in intimate contact with mucosae and other components of the GI tract. We have summarized the current situation with a focus on aspects of biomaterials and biocompatibility related to the device materials and other agents, with an emphasis on the GI endoscopic procedures. Procedures and devices used for the control of bleeding, for polypectomy, in bariatrics, and for stenting are discussed, particularly dwelling upon the biomaterial-related features of each application. There are indications that research is progressing steadily in this field, and the establishment of the subdiscipline of "gastroenterologic biomaterials" is not merely a remote projection. Upon the completion of this article, the gastroenterologist should be able to understand the nature of biomaterials and to achieve a suitable and beneficial perception of their significance in gastroenterology. Likewise, the biomaterialist should become aware of the specific tasks that the biomaterials must fulfil when placed within the GI tract, and regard such applications as both a challenge and an incentive for progressing the research in this field.

Band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including haemorrhage from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal haemorrhage commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Prevention is therefore important. Following numerous randomised clinical trials demonstrating efficacy of non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation in decreasing the incidence of variceal haemorrhage, primary prophylaxis of variceal haemorrhage in adults has become the established standard of care. Hence, band ligation and beta-blockers have been proposed to be used as primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of band ligation compared with any type of beta-blocker for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (February 2019), CENTRAL (December 2018), PubMed (December 2018), Embase Ovid (December 2018), LILACS (Bireme; January 2019), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science; December 2018). We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications and performed a manual search from the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conferences (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from 2009 to 2018. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. We planned to also include quasi-randomised and other observational studies retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials for report of harm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials using standard Cochrane methodologies.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised clinical trials assessing band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. There is a need for well-designed, adequately powered randomised clinical trials to assess the benefits and harms of band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. Those randomised clinical trials should include patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality, failure to control bleeding, and adverse events.

Comparison of Therapies for Primary Prevention of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of different approaches in primary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding and overall survival in patients with cirrhosis with large varices. Thirty-two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 3,362 adults with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices and no prior history of bleeding, with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up, were included. Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB), isosorbide-mononitrate (ISMN), carvedilol, and variceal band ligation (VBL), alone or in combination, were compared with each other or placebo. Primary outcomes were reduction of all-cause mortality and prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding. Random-effects NMA was performed and summary estimates were expressed as odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals (OR; CI). Quality of evidence was critically appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Moderate quality evidence supports NSBB monotherapy (0.70; 0.49-1.00) or in combination with VBL (0.49; 0.23-1.02) or ISMN (0.44; 0.21-0.93) for decreasing mortality in patients with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices and no prior history of bleeding. Moderate-quality evidence supports carvedilol (0.21; 0.08-0.56) and VBL monotherapy (0.33; 0.19-0.55) or in combination with NSBB (0.34; 0.14-0.86), and low-quality evidence supports NSBB monotherapy (0.64; 0.38-1.07) for primary prevention of variceal bleeding. VBL carries a higher risk of serious adverse events compared with NSBB. Conclusion: NSBB monotherapy may decrease all-cause mortality and the risk of first variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices. Additionally, NSBB carries a lower risk of serious complications compared with VBL. Therefore, NSBB may be the preferred initial approach for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding.

Patient Response to Endoscopic Therapy for Gastroesophageal Varices Based on Endoscopic Ultrasound Findings

Background/Aims

Gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage is a common complication of portal hypertension. Endoscopic therapy is currently recommended for preventing gastroesophageal variceal rebleed. However, the rate of variceal rebleed and its associated mortality remain concerning. This study is aimed at differentiating patient response to endoscopic therapy based on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) findings.

Methods

One-hundred seventy patients previously treated with repeat endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis were enrolled and classified into two groups based on treatment response. Prior to consolidation therapy, all patients received an EUS examination to observe for extraluminal phenomena. All available follow-up endoscopic examination records were retrieved to validate study results.

Results

Of the 170 subjects, 106 were poor responders, while 64 were good responders. The presence of para-gastric, gastric perforating, and esophageal perforating veins was associated with poor patient response (p<0.001). The odds ratio for para-gastric veins was 5.374. Follow-up endoscopic findings for poor responders with incomplete variceal obliteration was closely correlated with the presence of para-gastric veins (p=0.002).

Conclusions

The presence of para-gastric veins is a characteristic of poor response to endoscopic therapy for treating gastroesophageal varices. Early identification of this subgroup necessitates a change in course of treatment to improve overall patient outcome.

Betablockers do not increase efficacy of band ligation in primary prophylaxis but they improve survival in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is used for primary (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) of variceal bleeding. Current guidelines recommend combined use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and EBL for SP, while in PP either NSBB or EBL should be used.

AIM

To assess (re-)bleeding rates and mortality in cirrhotic patients receiving EBL for PP or SP for variceal bleeding.

METHODS

(Re-)bleeding rates and mortality were retrospectively assessed with and without concomitant NSBB therapy after first EBL in PP and SP.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and sixty-six patients with oesophageal varices underwent EBL from 01/2005 to 06/2015. Among the 284 patients undergoing EBL for PP, n = 101 (35.6%) received EBL only, while n = 180 (63.4%) received EBL + NSBBs. In 482 patients on SP, n = 163 (33.8%) received EBL only, while n = 299 (62%) received EBL + NSBBs. In PP, concomitant NSBB therapy neither decreased bleeding rates (log-rank: P = 0.353) nor mortality (log-rank: P = 0.497) as compared to EBL alone. In SP, similar re-bleeding rates were documented in EBL + NSBB vs EBL alone (log-rank: P = 0.247). However, EBL + NSBB resulted in a significantly lower mortality rate (log-rank: P<0.001). A decreased risk of death with EBL + NSBB in SP (hazard ratio, HR: 0.50; P<0.001) but not of rebleeding, transplantation or further decompensation was confirmed by competing risk analysis. Overall NSBB intake reduced 6-months mortality (HR: 0.53, P = 0.008) in SP, which was most pronounced in patients without severe/refractory ascites (HR: 0.37; P = 0.001) but not observed in patients with severe/refractory ascites (HR: 0.80; P = 0.567).

CONCLUSIONS

EBL alone seems sufficient for PP of variceal bleeding. In SP, the addition of NSBB to EBL was associated with an improved survival within the first 6 months after EBL.

Risk factors for exacerbation of gastroesophageal varices and portosystemic encephalopathy during treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogs for hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the risk factors for worsening of gastroesophageal varices (GEVs) and development of portosystemic encephalopathy in patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related cirrhosis during nucleos(t)ide analog (NA) treatment.

METHODS

One hundred and thirty-seven patients with HBV-related cirrhosis were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. Findings of portal hemodynamics with computed tomography, liver function, and endoscopic examinations during NA treatment were assessed.

RESULTS

Among 137 patients, feeding vessels for GEVs (left gastric vein, posterior gastric vein, and short gastric vein) were present in 56 (41%) patients, and extrahepatic portosystemic shunt (paraesophageal vein, paraumbilicul vein, and splenorenal shunt) were present in 36 (26%) patients at the start of NA treatment. Although NA treatment was successful, significant improvements were not observed in portosystemic collateral vessels 3 years after NA treatment and GEVs were exacerbated in 48 (35%) patients. The cumulative 5- and 10-year exacerbation rate of GEVs was 27% and 50%, respectively. By multivariate analysis, the existence of feeding vessels for GEVs at the start of NA treatment was the independent predictive factor for the exacerbation of GEVs (P < 0.001). Eight patients who had extrahepatic portosystemic shunt at the start of NA treatment developed portosystemic encephalopathy during follow-up. The 3- and 5-year incidence of that was 5% and 8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of portosystemic collateral vessels at the start of NA treatment increases the risk of GEVs worsening and development of portosystemic encephalopathy in patients with HBV-related cirrhosis, despite improvement of liver function and success in reducing viral loads with NA treatment.

A Multicenter Evaluation of Adherence to 4 Major Elements of the Baveno Guidelines and Outcomes for Patients With Acute Variceal Hemorrhage

GOALS

To determine the rate of and outcomes associated with guideline adherence in the care of acute variceal hemorrhage (AVH).

BACKGROUND

Four major elements of high-quality care for AVH defined by the Baveno consensus (VI) include timely endoscopy (≤12 h), antibiotics, and somatostatin analogs before endoscopy and band ligation as primary therapy for esophageal varices.

STUDY

We retrospectively evaluated 239 consecutive admissions of 211 patients with AVH admitted to 2 centers in Massachusetts from 2010 to 2015. The primary outcome was 6-week mortality; secondary outcomes included treatment failure (shock, hemoglobin drop by 3 g/dL, hematemesis, death ≤5 d), length of stay, and 30-day readmission.

RESULTS

Guideline adherence was variable: endoscopy ≤12 hours (79.9%), antibiotics (84.9%), band ligation (78.7%), and somatostatin analogs (90.8%). However, only 150 (62.8%) received care that was adherent to all indicated criteria. The 6-week mortality rate was 22.6%. Treatment failure occurred in 50 (21.0%) admissions. Among the 198 patients who survived to discharge, 41 (20.7%) were readmitted within 30 days. Octreotide before endoscopy was associated with a reduction in 30-day readmission (18.4% vs. 42.1%; P=0.03), whereas banding of esophageal varices was associated with a reduced risk of treatment failure (15.0% vs. 50.0%; P≤0.001). However, adherence to quality metrics did not significantly reduce the risk of death within 6 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to quality metrics may not reduce the risk of mortality but could improve secondary outcomes of AVH. Variation in practice should be addressed through quality improvement interventions.

Left Gastric Vein Visualization with Hepatopetal Flow Information in Healthy Subjects Using Non-Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography with Balanced Steady-State Free-Precession Sequence and Time-Spatial Labeling Inversion Pulse

Objective

To selectively visualize the left gastric vein (LGV) with hepatopetal flow information by non-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography under a hypothesis that change in the LGV flow direction can predict the development of esophageal varices; and to optimize the acquisition protocol in healthy subjects.

Materials and Methods

Respiratory-gated three-dimensional balanced steady-state free-precession scans were conducted on 31 healthy subjects using two methods (A and B) for visualizing the LGV with hepatopetal flow. In method A, two time-spatial labeling inversion pulses (Time-SLIP) were placed on the whole abdomen and the area from the gastric fornix to the upper body, excluding the LGV area. In method B, nonselective inversion recovery pulse was used and one Time-SLIP was placed on the esophagogastric junction. The detectability and consistency of LGV were evaluated using the two methods and ultrasonography (US).

Results

Left gastric veins by method A, B, and US were detected in 30 (97%), 24 (77%), and 23 (74%) subjects, respectively. LGV flow by US was hepatopetal in 22 subjects and stagnant in one subject. All hepatopetal LGVs by US coincided with the visualized vessels in both methods. One subject with non-visualized LGV in method A showed stagnant LGV by US.

Conclusion

Hepatopetal LGV could be selectively visualized by method A in healthy subjects.

Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension

Acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage is a dreaded complication of portal hypertension. Its management has evolved rapidly in recent years. Endoscopic therapy is often employed to arrest bleeding varices as well as to prevent early rebleeding. The combination of vasoconstrictor and endoscopic therapy is superior to vasoconstrictor or endoscopic therapy alone for control of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. After control of acute variceal bleeding, combination of banding ligation and beta-blockers is generally recommended to prevent variceal rebleeding. To prevent the catastrophic event of acute variceal bleeding, endoscopic banding ligation is an important tool in the prophylaxis of first bleeding. Endoscopic obturation with cyanoacrylate is usually utilized to arrest acute gastric variceal hemorrhage as well as to prevent rebleeding. It can be concluded that endoscopic therapies play a pivotal role in management of portal hypertensive bleeding.

Feasibility of transnasal endoscopy in screening for esophageal and gastric varices in patients with chronic liver disease

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Screening for esophageal and gastric varices is indicated for patients with portal hypertension or cirrhosis. Typically, conventional endoscopy is used; however, the need for sedation increases the costs and risks, especially in cirrhotic patients. Use of transnasal endoscopy with an ultrathin endoscope enables study of the upper gastrointestinal tract without the need for sedation. The objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of transnasal endoscopy in screening for esophageal and gastric varices in patients with chronic liver disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective study in which transnasal endoscopy was carried out in patients with cirrhosis or portal hypertension who had indications for screening of esophageal and gastric varices. The following variables were evaluated: demographical data, duration of procedure, patient tolerance and acceptance, adverse events (AEs), endoscopic findings and interobserver agreement related to portal hypertension alterations ( kappa index).

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients entered the study. The most common cause of liver disease was chronic viral hepatitis (66 %). Among the cirrhotic patients, most of the patients were Child-Pugh A (74 %). In 5 patients (10 %), nasal intubation was not possible. Two patients (4 %) experienced minor epistaxis. Tolerance was excellent or good in 92 % according with a visual analogic scale. In 16 patients (32 %), esophageal varices were detected and in 2 patients (4 %) gastric varices were detected. The mean duration of the procedure was 7 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

Transnasal endoscopy is feasible, effective and well tolerated for screening of esophageal and gastric varices in patients with chronic liver disease. It can be performed in outpatient clinics safely and without the use of sedation.

The detection of oesophageal varices using a novel, disposable, probe-based transnasal endoscope: a prospective diagnostic pilot study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Screening for oesophageal varices (OV) using conventional oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (C-OGD) is invasive and requires costly monitoring, recovery, and decontamination facilities. We aimed to evaluate the technical feasibility, acceptability and accuracy of a novel, portable and disposable office-based transnasal endoscope (EG Scan^™ ) compared to C-OGD as the reference standard.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study. Consecutive adult patients with cirrhosis were invited to participate. All subjects underwent the two procedures on the same day performed by two endoscopists in a blinded design. Patients completed preference and validated tolerability (10-point visual analogue scale (VAS)) questionnaires on day 0 and day 14 post procedures.

RESULTS

Forty-five of 50 patients (90%) completed both interventions. Mean age was 59 years and OV prevalence was 49%. Patients reported higher preference (percentage) and better experience (mean VAS) with EG Scan compared to C-OGD on day 0 (76.5% vs. 23.5%, P < 0.001; 7.8 vs. 6.8, P = 0.058, respectively) and day 14 (77.8% vs. 22.2%, P < 0.001; 7.0 vs. 5.5, P = 0.0013 respectively). Sensitivity and specificity of the EG Scan for the diagnosis of any size OV were 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.95), and 0.78 (95% CI 0.56-0.93) respectively. Corresponding values for the diagnosis of clinically significant (medium/large) OV were 0.92 (95% CI 0.62-1.0), 0.97 (95% CI 0.84-1.0) respectively. No serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

EG Scan accuracy was higher for the diagnosis of medium/large OV compared to any size OV. Patients' preference and overall experience of the EG Scan was favourable compared to C-OGD 14 days after procedures.

Role of EUS evaluation after endoscopic eradication of esophageal varices with band ligation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Variceal recurrence after endoscopic band ligation (EBL) for secondary prophylaxis is a frequent event. Some studies have reported a correlation between variceal recurrence and variceal rebleeding with the EUS features of paraesophageal vessels. A prospective observational study was conducted to correlate EUS evaluation of paraesophageal varices, azygos vein, and thoracic duct with variceal recurrence after EBL variceal eradication in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

EUS was performed before and 1 month after EBL variceal eradication. Paraesophageal varices, azygos vein, and thoracic duct maximum diameters were evaluated in predetermined anatomic stations. After EBL variceal eradication, patients were submitted to endoscopic examinations every 3 months for 1 year. We looked for EUS features that could predict variceal recurrence.

RESULTS

Thirty patients completed a 1-year endoscopic follow-up. Seventeen patients (57%) presented variceal recurrence. There was no correlation between azygos vein and thoracic duct diameter with variceal recurrence. Larger paraesophageal varices predicted variceal recurrence in both evaluation periods. Paraesophageal varices diameters that best correlated with variceal recurrence were 6.3 mm before EBL (52.9% sensitivity, 92.3% specificity, and .749 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]) and 4 mm after EBL (70.6% sensitivity, 84.6% specificity, and .801 AUROC).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that paraesophageal varices diameter measured by EUS predicts variceal recurrence within 1 year after EBL variceal eradication. Paraesophageal diameter after variceal eradication is a better recurrence predictor, because it has a lower cut-off parameter, higher sensitivity, and higher AUROC.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis 2015

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology revised the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis in 2015. Eighty-three clinical questions were selected, and a literature search was performed for the clinical questions with use of the MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases for the period between 1983 and June 2012. Manual searching of the latest important literature was added until August 2015. The guidelines were developed with use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. This digest version in English introduces selected clinical questions and statements related to the management of liver cirrhosis and its complications. Branched-chain amino acids relieve hypoalbuminemia and hepatic encephalopathy and improve quality of life. Nucleoside analogues and peginterferon plus ribavirin combination therapy improve the prognosis of patients with hepatitis B virus related liver cirrhosis and hepatitis C related compensated liver cirrhosis, respectively, although the latter therapy may be replaced by direct-acting antivirals. For liver cirrhosis caused by primary biliary cirrhosis and active autoimmune hepatitis, urosodeoxycholic acid and steroid are recommended, respectively. The most adequate modalities for the management of variceal bleeding are the endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophageal varices and the balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration following endoscopic obturation with cyanoacrylate for gastric varices. Beta-blockers are useful for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding. The V2 receptor antagonist tolvaptan is a useful add-on therapy in careful diuretic therapy for ascites. Albumin infusion is useful for the prevention of paracentesis-induced circulatory disturbance and renal failure. In addition to disaccharides, the nonabsorbable antibiotic rifaximin is useful for the management of encephalopathy. Anticoagulation therapy is proposed for patients with acute-onset or progressive portal vein thrombosis.

Extrahepatic portal-vein obstruction in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Extrahepatic portal-vein obstruction (EHPVO) is a common cause of portal hypertension in developing countries. The main risk in pregnant women with this condition is variceal bleeding, which may be life-threatening. The objective of our study was to assess the outcome of pregnancy in women with EHPVO.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 21 pregnancies in 12 women with EHPVO was carried out at a tertiary hospital in India.

RESULTS

The mean age of pregnant women with EHPVO was 25.3 years, and the mean duration of disease since diagnosis was 6.1 ± 1.2 years. All the patients had chronic EHPVO, and two patients were diagnosed in the index pregnancy. The incidence of abortion, preterm deliveries, and small for gestational age fetus was 23.8%, 18.7%, and 12.5%, respectively. Thrombocytopenia was found to complicate 61.9% of the pregnancies, while anemia was detected in 40% of the pregnancies. Variceal bleeding occurred in one woman, who was diagnosed during pregnancy and was managed successfully with endoscopic sclerotherapy. None of the patients who were diagnosed prenatally had variceal bleeding during pregnancy. The outcome in nine pregnancies, in which prenatal endoscopic variceal ligation was done, was compared with eight pregnancies, in which endoscopic sclerotherapy was done. No significant difference between the two groups in terms of pregnancy outcome and complications was found. There were no stillbirths or maternal mortality.

CONCLUSION

Women with EHPVO who have been diagnosed and treated prenatally have a good pregnancy outcome. They should be managed in a tertiary care center with a multidisciplinary approach.

Therapies: Drugs, Scopes and Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt--When and How?

Variceal bleeding is the most serious complication of portal hypertension. All cirrhotic patients should be screened endoscopically for varices which are present in about 30% of compensated and 60% of decompensated patients at diagnosis. In patients without varices, endoscopy surveillance should be continued every 2 years. Patients with high-risk varices (moderate or large in size, or with red color signs, or in Child-Pugh C patients) should be treated with a nonselective β-blocker to prevent bleeding (propranolol, nadolol or carvedilol). Endoscopic banding ligation is also effective for the prevention of first bleeding, and it is the first choice in patients with contraindications or intolerance to β-blockers. Acute variceal hemorrhage still has a high mortality rate (around 15%) and requires intensive care management and conservative blood transfusion policy. Treatment is based on the combined use of vasoactive drugs, endoscopic band ligation and prophylactic antibiotics. Failures are best managed by transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Balloon tamponade or specifically designed covered esophageal stents can be used as a bridge to definitive therapy in unstable patients. Early, preemptive TIPS might be the first choice in patients at high risk of failure (Child-Pugh B with active bleeding or Child-Pugh C up to 13 points). Patients surviving a variceal bleeding are at high risk of rebleeding. A combination of β-blockers and endoscopic band ligation is the most effective therapeutic approach. Preliminary data suggest that the addition of simvastatin increases survival in these patients.

The cost of screening esophageal varices: traditional endoscopy versus computed tomography

OBJECTIVE

Under current guidelines, patients diagnosed with cirrhosis are to undergo initial and continued screening endoscopy for esophageal varices throughout the course of disease. Recent literature suggests that computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen is adequately sensitive for detecting grade 3 varices, those in need of immediate intervention. This study presents a cost comparison of traditional endoscopy versus CT of the abdomen.

METHODS

Using TreeAge Pro software, a budget impact cost model was created for a hypothetical managed care organization covering 1 million lives over a 10-year period. Incidence figures for cirrhosis and the progression of esophageal varices were applied to the patient population. National Medicare reimbursement costs were used to compare screening with traditional endoscopy versus CT. Costs utilizing screening with combined endoscopy and CT were also examined.

RESULTS

The results of comparing screening paradigms under a budget impact cost model results in an outcome measure termed "per-member, per-month" (PMPM) cost of implementing a new strategy. Computed tomography was the least expensive modality with an average 10-year cost per screened patient of $1097.30 and PMPM of $0.03. Endoscopy was the most expensive modality with an average 10-year cost per screened patient of $1464.89 and PMPM of $0.04.

CONCLUSION

Computed tomography has been shown to be sensitive in detecting esophageal varices and now less costly to implement in screening. The cost of esophageal rupture in endoscopy and the less costly risk of contrast reaction as well as radiation exposure in CT of the abdomen should be considered when developing a screening paradigm.

The comparison of esophageal variceal ligation plus propranolol versus propranolol alone for the primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To investigate the efficacy and longterm outcome of esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) plus propranolol in comparison with propranolol alone for the primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding.

METHODS

A total of 504 patients were retrospectively enrolled in this study. 330 patients were in propranolol group (Gr1) and 174 patients were in EVL plus propranolol group (Gr2). The endpoints of this study were esophageal variceal bleeding and mortality. Association analyses were performed to evaluate bleeding and mortality between Gr1 and Gr2.

RESULTS

EVL was more applied in patients with high risk, such as large-sized varices (F2 or F3) or positive red color signs. Total 38 patients had bleeds, 32 in Gr1 and 6 in Gr2. The cumulative probability of bleeding at 120 months was 13% in Gr1 versus 4% in Gr2 (P=0.04). The predictive factors of variceal bleeding were red color signs (OR 2.962, P=0.007) and the method of propranolol plus EVL (OR 0.160, P=0.000). 20 patients died in Gr1 and 12 in Gr2. Mortality rates are similar in the two groups compared, 6.7% in Gr1 and 6.9% in Gr2. The cumulative probability of mortality at 120 months was not significantly different in the two groups (7% in Gr1, 12% in Gr2, P=0.798). The prognostic factors for mortality were age over 50 (OR 5.496, P=0.002), Child-Pugh class B (OR 3.979, P=0.001), and Child-Pugh class C (OR 10.861, P=0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

EVL plus propranolol is more effective than propranolol alone in the prevention of the first variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis.

Prospective randomized trial: endoscopic follow up 3 vs 6 months after esophageal variceal eradication by band ligation in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is recommended to treat esophageal varices (EV) in cirrhosis and portal hypertension. A program of endoscopic surveillance is not clearly established. The aim of this prospective randomized trial was to assess the most effective timing of endoscopic monitoring after variceal eradication and its impact on the patient's outcome and on the costs.

METHODS

A hundred and two cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices treated by EVL were evaluated. After variceal eradication patients were randomized to receive first endoscopic control at 3 (Group 1) and 6 (Group 2) months respectively.

RESULTS

Variceal obliteration was achieved in all patients. Variceal recurrence was observed in 28 cases at the first control (29.1%) without difference between the two groups (32% vs 29% in group 1 and 2 respectively, p=0.75). The incidence of large varices is similar in the two groups (33% vs 38% respectively). Using a multivariate analysis, medical therapy with B blockers was the only independent predictor of lowest risk of variceal recurrence [OR 2.30, 95% CI (1.68-3.26)]. Bleeding related to recurrent varices occurred in 3.1% of cases and was associated with portal thrombosis. Child Pugh score ≥8 was the only predictor of mortality (p=0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrence of varices after banding ligation is not rare but it is associated with a low risk of variceal progression and bleeding. Accordingly, a first endoscopic control at 6 months after variceal eradication associated with a good risk stratification might be a cost-effective strategy of monitoring.

Beta-blockers in portal hypertension: new developments and controversies

There are many studies investigating the role of non-selective beta-blockers in portal hypertension. Satisfactory reduction in portal pressure is possible in a third to half of patients with propranolol and nadolol, although combining these drugs with nitrates may be more effective. Carvedilol is a more potent agent than propranolol in reducing portal pressure, particularly in non-responders, and is better tolerated. All these drugs have been studied in primary and secondary prophylaxis, sometimes in combination with band ligation and/or nitrates. There is some evidence to support combining these agents with band ligation, despite a lack of survival benefit and increased adverse events. Hemodynamic monitoring can help select non-responders who may benefit from additional therapies such as band ligation, as lack of response is associated with worse outcomes. Propranolol should be used with caution in patients with refractory ascites, although the current evidence is not of sufficient quality to justify not using these drugs in such situations. Beta-blockers have been shown to reduce bacterial translocation and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis.

Carvedilol vs. esophageal variceal band ligation in the primary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage: a multicentre randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Esophageal variceal bleed is a major problem in patients with cirrhosis. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) has been shown to be equal to or better than propranolol in preventing first bleed. Carvedilol is a non-selective β blocker with alpha-1 adrenergic blocker activity. Hemodynamic studies have shown carvedilol to be more effective than propranolol at reducing portal pressure. We compared efficacy of carvedilol with EVL for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleed.

METHODS

Cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices were randomized to carvedilol 12.5mg daily or EVL at three university hospitals of Pakistan. End points were esophageal variceal bleeding, death or liver transplant.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nine patients were evaluated. Eighty two and eighty six patients were randomized in carvedilol and EVL arms respectively. Mean age was 48 ± 12.2 years; 122 (72.7%) were males; 89.9% had viral cirrhosis; mean Child-Pugh score was 7.3 ± 1.6 and mean follow up was 13.3 ± 12.1 months (range 1-50 months). Both EVL and carvedilol groups had comparable variceal bleeding rates (8.5% vs. 6.9%), bleed related mortality (4.6% vs. 4.9%) and overall mortality (12.8% vs. 19.5%) respectively. Adverse events in carvedilol group were hypotension (n=2), requiring cessation of therapy, while transient nausea (n=18) and dyspnea (n=30) resolved spontaneously. In the EVL arm, post banding ulcer bleed (n=1) and chest pain (n=17), were termed as serious adverse events while transient dysphagia (n=58) resolved without treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our study is underpowered, the findings suggest that carvedilol is probably not superior to EVL in preventing first variceal bleed in patients with viral cirrhosis.

Impact of portal vein thrombosis on the efficacy of endoscopic variceal band ligation

BACKGROUND

Influence of portal vein thrombosis on efficacy of endoscopic variceal banding in patients with cirrhosis or extrahepatic portal vein obstruction has never been evaluated. Aim of the study was to assess influence of thrombosis on rate and time to eradication in cirrhosis and extrahepatic portal vein obstruction undergoing banding, compared to cirrhotic patients without thrombosis.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 235 consecutive patients (192 with cirrhosis without thrombosis, 22 cirrhosis and thrombosis and 21 extrahepatic portal vein obstruction) who underwent banding. Banding was performed every 2-3 weeks until eradication; endoscopic follow-up was performed at 1, 3, 6 months, then annually.

RESULTS

Eradication was achieved in 233 patients. Median time to eradication in cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis vs. cirrhotic patients without thrombosis was 50.9 days (12-440) vs. 43.4 days (13-489.4); log-rank: 0.04; patients with extrahepatic portal vein obstruction vs. cirrhotic patients without thrombosis 63.9 days (31-321.6) vs. 43.4 days (13.0-489.4); log-rank: 0.008. Thrombosis was shown to be the only risk factor for longer time to eradication.

CONCLUSIONS

Portal vein thrombosis per se appears to be the cause of a longer time to achieve eradication of varices but, once eradication is achieved, it does not influence their recurrence.

Rebleeding prophylaxis improves outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. A multicenter case-control study

Outcome of variceal bleeding (VB) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is unknown. We compared outcomes after VB in patients with and without HCC. All patients with HCC and esophageal VB admitted between 2007 and 2010 were included. Follow-up was prolonged until death, transplantation, or June 2011. For each patient with HCC, a patient without HCC matched by age and Child-Pugh class was selected. A total of 292 patients were included, 146 with HCC (Barcelona Classification of Liver Cancer class 0-3 patients, A [in 25], B [in 29], C [in 45], and D [in 41]) and 146 without HCC. No differences were observed regarding previous use of prophylaxis, clinical presentation, endoscopic findings, and initial endoscopic treatment. Five-day failure was similar (25% in HCC versus 18% in non-HCC; P = 0.257). HCC patients had greater 6-week rebleeding rate (16 versus 7%, respectively; P = 0.025) and 6-week mortality (30% versus 15%; P = 0.003). Fewer patients with HCC received secondary prophylaxis after bleeding (77% versus 89%; P = 0.009), and standard combination therapy was used less frequently (58% versus 70%; P = 0.079). Secondary prophylaxis failure was more frequent (50% versus 31%; P = 0.001) and survival significantly shorter in patients with HCC (median survival: 5 months versus greater than 38 months in patients without HCC; P < 0.001). Lack of prophylaxis increased rebleeding and mortality. On multivariate analysis Child-Pugh score, presence of HCC, portal vein thrombosis, and lack of secondary prophylaxis were predictors of death.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HCC and VB have worse prognosis than patients with VB without HCC. Secondary prophylaxis offers survival benefit in HCC patients.

Carvedilol for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with haemodynamic non-response to propranolol

OBJECTIVE

Non-selective β-blockers or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) are recommended for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with oesophageal varices. Additional α-adrenergic blockade (as by carvedilol) may increase the number of patients with haemodynamic response (reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) of ≥ 20% or to values <12 mm Hg).

DESIGN

Patients with oesophageal varices undergoing measurement of HVPG before and under propranolol treatment (80-160 mg/day) were included. HVPG responders were kept on propranolol (PROP group), while non-responders were placed on carvedilol (6.25-50 mg/day). Carvedilol responders continued treatment (CARV group), while non-responders to carvedilol underwent EBL. The primary aim was to assess haemodynamic response rates to carvedilol in propranolol non-responders.

RESULTS

36% (37/104) of patients showed a HVPG response to propranolol. Among the propranolol non-responders 56% (38/67) eventually achieved a haemodynamic response with carvedilol, while 44% (29/67) patients were finally treated with EBL. The decrease in HVPG was significantly greater with carvedilol (median 12.5 mg/day) than with propranolol (median 100 mg/day): -19 ± 10% versus -12 ± 11% (p<0.001). During a 2 year follow-up bleeding rates for PROP were 11% versus CARV 5% versus EBL 25% (p=0.0429). Fewer episodes of hepatic decompensation (PROP 38%/CARV 26% vs EBL 55%; p=0.0789) and significantly lower mortality (PROP 14%/CARV 11% vs EBL 31%; p=0.0455) were observed in haemodynamic responders compared to the EBL group.

CONCLUSIONS

Carvedilol leads to a significantly greater decrease in HVPG than propranolol. Using carvedilol for primary prophylaxis a substantial proportion of non-responders to propranolol can achieve a haemodynamic response, which is associated with improved outcome with regard to prevention of variceal bleeding, hepatic decompensation and death.

Usefulness of MR elastography for predicting esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the usefulness of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) as a noninvasive tool for predicting esophageal varices and identifying high-risk varices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In all, 126 patients with liver cirrhosis, and who underwent both MRI including MRE of the liver as well as upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for variceal screening within 1 month before or after the MRI, were included in this study. The relationship between the liver stiffness values measured by MRE and the degree of esophageal varices was assessed using Spearman's correlation analysis. In addition, the diagnostic performance of MRE for predicting the presence of varices or high-risk varices (grade≥II) was evaluated using the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves.

RESULTS

The mean stiffness values of liver parenchyma measured on MRE were well correlated with the grade of esophageal varices (r=0.63). In addition, the MRE-based liver stiffness values were significantly lower in the lower-risk group than in the higher-risk group (P<0.0001). The area under the ROC curve values of MRE for predicting the presence of varices or high-risk varices (grade≥II) were 0.859 and 0.810, respectively. Using a liver stiffness cutoff value of 5.803 kPa, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for predicting high-grade (≥II) esophageal varices were 96%, 60%, 36%, and 98%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The MRE-based liver stiffness value may be useful for noninvasively predicting esophageal varices and identifying high-risk varices in cirrhotic patients.

Primary prophylaxis of bleeding from esophageal varices in cirrhosis

Prophylaxis of the first bleeding from esophageal varices became a clinical option more than 20 years ago, and gained a large diffusion in the following years. It is based on the use of nonselective beta-blockers, which decreases portal pressure, or on the eradication of esophageal varices by endoscopic band ligation of varices. In patients with medium or large varices either of these treatments is indicated. In patients with small varices only medical treatment is feasible, and in patients with medium and large varices with contraindication or side-effects due to beta-blockers, only endoscopic band ligation may be used. In this review the rationale and the results of the prophylaxis of bleeding from esophageal varices are discussed.

Portal hypertension and gastrointestinal bleeding: Diagnosis, prevention and management

Bleeding from esophageal varices is a life threatening complication of portal hypertension. Primary prevention of bleeding in patients at risk for a first bleeding episode is therefore a major goal. Medical prophylaxis consists of non-selective beta-blockers like propranolol or carvedilol. Variceal endoscopic band ligation is equally effective but procedure related morbidity is a drawback of the method. Therapy of acute bleeding is based on three strategies: vasopressor drugs like terlipressin, antibiotics and endoscopic therapy. In refractory bleeding, self-expandable stents offer an option for bridging to definite treatments like transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Treatment of bleeding from gastric varices depends on vasopressor drugs and on injection of varices with cyanoacrylate. Strategies for primary or secondary prevention are based on non-selective beta-blockers but data from large clinical trials is lacking. Therapy of refractory bleeding relies on shunt-procedures like TIPS. Bleeding from ectopic varices, portal hypertensive gastropathy and gastric antral vascular ectasia-syndrome is less common. Possible medical and endoscopic treatment options are discussed.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Patients with Portal Hypertension

Gastrointestinal bleeding related to portal hypertension is a serious complication in patients with liver cirrhosis. Most patients bleed from esophageal or gastric varices, but bleeding from ectopic varices or portal hypertensive gastropathy is also possible. The management of acute bleeding has changed over the last years. Patients are managed with a combination of endoscopic and pharmacologic treatment. The endoscopic treatment of choice for esophageal variceal bleeding is variceal band ligation. Bleeding from gastric varices is treated by injection with cyanoacrylate. Treatment with vasoactive drugs as well as antibiotic treatment is started before or at the time point of endoscopy. The first-line treatment for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding is nonselective beta blockers. Pharmacologic therapy is recommended for most patients; band ligation is an alternative in patients with contraindications for or intolerability of beta blockers. Treatment options for secondary prophylaxis include variceal band ligation, beta blockers, a combination of nitrates and beta blockers, and combination of band ligation and pharmacologic treatment. A clear superiority of one treatment over the other has not been shown. Bleeding from portal hypertensive gastropathy or ectopic varices is less common. Treatment options include beta blocker therapy, injection therapy, and interventional radiology.

Risk factors for the exacerbation of esophageal varices or portosystemic encephalopathy after sustained virological response with IFN therapy for HCV-related compensated cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to identify risk factors contributing to the exacerbation of esophageal varices (EV) or portosystemic encephalopathy after hepatitis C virus (HCV) eradication with interferon (IFN) therapy in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Also, the prognosis after HCV eradication was analyzed.

METHODS

Fifty-two patients with sustained virological response to IFN treatment for HCV-related compensated cirrhosis were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study.

RESULTS

At the achievement of HCV eradication, in 31 of the 52 patients (60 %), feeding vessels for EVs (left gastric vein, posterior gastric vein, short gastric vein) were shown, and in 18 patients (35 %) there were extrahepatic portosystemic shunts (paraesophageal vein, paraumbilical vein, and splenorenal shunt). Although the HCV eradication was successful, significant improvements were not observed in portosystemic collateral vessels 1 year after HCV eradication, and EVs were exacerbated in 19 (36 %) patients. The cumulative 1- and 3-year rates of EV exacerbation were 13 % and 49 %, respectively. By multivariate analysis, the existence of feeding vessels for EVs at HCV eradication was an independent predictive factor for the exacerbation of EVs (P = 0.009). Seven patients who had an extrahepatic portosystemic shunt at HCV eradication developed portosystemic encephalopathy during follow up. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year incidences of portosystemic encephalopathy were 6, 21, and 34 %, respectively. The cumulative 5-year survival rate of the cohort was 81 %. Two patients died of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the existence of radical portosystemic collateral vessels at successful HCV eradication increases the risk of the exacerbation of EVs and the incidence of portosystemic encephalopathy in patients with HCV-related cirrhosis.

MR-based measurements of portal vein flow and liver stiffness for predicting gastroesophageal varices

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated flow parameters measured by phase-contrast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (PC-MRI) of the portal venous system and liver stiffness measured by MR elastography (MRE) to determine the usefulness of these methods in predicting gastroesophageal varices (GEV) in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD).

METHODS

In patients with CLD and controls, we performed PC-MRI on the portal (PV) and superior mesenteric veins; calculated mean velocity (V, cm/s), cross-sectional area (S, mm²), and flow volume (Q, mL/min); and determined markers of liver fibrosis (liver stiffness [kPa]) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) platelet ratio index [APRI]). We visually assessed GEV and development of collateral pathways of the PV on routine contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging and compared patient characteristics, flow parameters, liver stiffness markers, and visual analysis among 3GEV groups, those with mild, severe, or no GEV with reference to endoscopic findings.

RESULTS

Child-Pugh grade, VPV, SPV, liver stiffness, APRI, and visually identified GEV (visible GEV) differed significantly among the 3 groups (P<0.05). We investigated VPV, SPV, liver stiffness, and visible GEV as independent markers to distinguish patients with and without GEV and examined VPV and visible GEV to predict severe GEV. Visible GEV showed low sensitivity (14 to 30%) and high specificity (98%) for predicting GEV in patients with CLD. A subgroup analysis that excluded cases with collateral pathway demonstrated slightly improved diagnostic performance of VPV and liver stiffness.

CONCLUSIONS

Portal vein flow parameters and liver stiffness can be useful markers for predicting GEV in patients with CLD.

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.

Meta-analysis: beta-blockers versus banding ligation for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding

AIM

To perform an updated meta-analysis comparing β-blockers (BB) with endoscopic variceal banding ligation (EVBL) in the primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were identified through electronic databases, article reference lists and conference proceedings. Analysis was performed using both fixed-effect and random-effect models. Heterogeneity and publication bias were systematically taken into account. Main outcomes were variceal bleeding rates and all-cause mortality, calculated overall and at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months.

RESULTS

19 randomized controlled trials were analyzed including a total of 1,483 patients. Overall bleeding rates were significantly lower for the EVBL group: odds ratio (OR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.55-2.73], p < 0.0001, without evidence of publication bias. Bleeding rates were also significantly lower at 18 months (OR 2.20, 95% CI [1.04-4.60], P = 0.04), but publication bias was detected. When only high quality trials were taken into account, results for bleeding rates were no longer significant. No significant difference was found for either bleeding-related mortality or for all-cause mortality overall or at 6, 12, 18 or 24 months. BB were associated with more frequent severe adverse events (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.60-4.40, P < 0.0001) whereas fatal adverse events were more frequent with EVBL (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-0.99, P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

EVBL appears to be superior to BB in preventing the first variceal bleed, although this finding may be biased as it was not confirmed by high quality trials. No difference was found for mortality. Current evidence is insufficient to recommend EVBL over BB as first-line therapy.

Risk of bleeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG)

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement are often on anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet therapy with a potential thromboembolic risk if these medications are discontinued. Data on the safety of peri-procedural use of these drugs is limited.

AIMS

To assess the risk and to identify any predictive factors for post-PEG bleeding, and to determine if clopidogrel increases the risk of bleeding following PEG.

METHODS

A retrospective chart audit was conducted from January 1, 2002 to June 30, 2011.

RESULTS

A total of 1,541 patients underwent PEG placement during this period. Gastrointestinal bleeding after PEG placement occurred in 51 cases (3.3%) and bleeding directly attributed to PEG was noted in six patients (0.4%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis of variables (age, gender, length of hospitalization, indication for PEG, antiplatelet or anticoagulant medications) showed that heparin infusion (P = 0.018) and length of hospitalization (P = 0.029) were statistically significant predictors of bleeding. The mean period for cessation and resumption of clopidogrel with PEG placement were 2.2 and 1.3 days, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although PEG is classified as a high-risk endoscopic procedure, bleeding with PEG placement was rare, even with use of anticoagulation and antiplatelet medications. In selected patients on heparin infusion undergoing PEG, delaying the procedure, alternative use of low-molecular-weight heparin or close monitoring and frequent assessments should be considered. Clopidogrel did not contribute to an increase in bleeding risk, despite being held for a much shorter peri-procedural period as recommended by expert consensus.

Management of portal hypertension in children

Portal hypertension can be caused by a wide variety of conditions. It frequently presents with bleeding from esophageal varices. The approach to acute variceal hemorrhage in children is a stepwise progression from least invasive to most invasive. Management of acute variceal bleeding is straightforward. But data on primary prophylaxis and long term management prevention of recurrent variceal bleeding in children is scarce, therefore prospective multicenter trials are needed to establish best practices.

Long-term administration of PPI reduces treatment failures after esophageal variceal band ligation: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Elective esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) is performed to decrease the risk of variceal hemorrhage. EVL is associated with adverse effects, including post-ligated bleeding, chest pain, and dysphagia. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most potent pharmacological agents for inhibition of gastric acid secretion. However, the long-term effect of PPIs after EVL remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of rabeprazole, a PPI, after variceal eradication by EVL.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, controlled trial in Kitasato University East Hospital. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as variceal hemorrhage or severe medical complications. Between July 2007 and September 2010, 43 patients were randomized into this study and followed up until September 2010.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients in the rabeprazole arm received 10 mg rabeprazole daily after EVL, and 22 patients in the control received no antisecretory treatment from the same stage. Baseline characteristics did not differ between the groups (median Child-Pugh score, 6; median age, 62 years; median follow-up, 18.7 months). The trial was stopped early after an interim analysis showed that the risk of bleeding and failure of rabeprazole treatment was lower than that of no antisecretory treatment with the log-rank test showing a significant difference between the groups (P = 0.007) and a hazard ratio of 0.098 [95% confidence interval, 0.012-0.79 (P = 0.029)].

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term administration of PPIs reduced the risk of treatment failure after EVL. Acid suppression therapy should also be considered as a treatment option after EVL.

Clinical outcome of esophageal varices after hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with major portal vein tumor thrombus

AIM

  To analyze the clinical outcome of esophageal varices (EV) after hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and major portal vein tumor thrombus (Vp3/4).

METHODS

  The study subjects were 45 consecutive patients who received HAIC for HCC with Vp3/4 between January 2005 and December 2009. HAIC comprised the combination therapy of intra-arterial 5-FU with interferon-α (5-FU/IFN) in 23 patients and low-dose cisplatin plus 5-FU (FP) in 22. Radiotherapy (RT) was also provided in 19 patients for portal vein tumor thrombosis. Aggravation rate for EV and overall survival rate were analyzed.

RESULTS

  The aggravation rates for EV were 47% and 64% at 12 and 24 months, respectively. The survival rates were 47% and 33% at 12 and 24 months, respectively. The response rates to 5-FU/IFN and FP were 35% and 41%, while the disease control rates in these two groups were 57% and 50%, respectively. There were no significant differences in the objective response and disease control between 5-FU/IFN and FP. Multivariate analysis identified size of EV (F2/F3) (HR = 7.554, P = 0.006) and HCC disease control (HR = 5.948, P = 0.015) as significant and independent determinants of aggravation of EV, and HCC disease control (HR = 12.233, P < 0.001), metastasis from HCC (HR = 11.469, P = 0.001), ascites (HR = 8.825, P = 0.003) and low serum albumin (HR = 4.953, P = 0.026) as determinants of overall survival. RT for portal vein tumor thrombosis tended to reduce the aggravation rate for EV in patients with these risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

  Hepatocellular carcinoma disease control was the most significant and independent factor for aggravation of EV and overall survival in HCC patients with major portal vein tumor thrombosis treated with HAIC.

Care of the liver transplant candidate

Care of the liver transplant candidate is one of the most challenging, yet rewarding aspects of hepatology. Anticipation and intervention for the major complications of advanced liver disease increase the likelihood of survival until transplant.