Endoscopic sclerotherapy plus propranolol versus propranolol alone in the primary prevention of bleeding in high risk cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices: a prospective multicenter randomized trial

The effect of prophylactic antibiotics in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Currently, prophylactic antibiotics are recommended only for cirrhotic patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB); however, the benefit for other AUGIB patients remains undetermined. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between patients with AUGIB with and without prophylactic antibiotics to identify the population that requires this therapy.

METHODS

Patients with AUGIB admitted between 1st January 2019 and 31st December 2021 in the Emergency Department of Peking Union Medical College Hospital were enrolled. Patients were divided into the antibiotic and non-antibiotic groups. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and the secondary outcome was the onset of new infection. The risk factors for mortality and infection were analyzed, and stratification analysis of prophylactic antibiotics was performed. Continuous data were analyzed using the t-test or nonparametric rank sum test, and categorical data were analyzed using the Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Indicators with significant differences between the groups were included for logistic regression analysis. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 392 individuals were included, among them, 281 patients received prophylactic antibiotics, and 111 patients did not receive prophylactic antibiotics. The mortality rates were significantly lower in the antibiotic group than in the non-antibiotics group (6.41% vs. 17.12%, P=0.001). The risk factors for infection were varicose veins (P=0.045) and endotracheal intubation (P=0.005) in the prophylactic antibiotic group, and endoscopic treatment (P=0.010) in the non-prophylactic antibiotic group. Stratified analyses showed that patients with age ≥ 65 years, endotracheal intubation, endoscopic treatment, and AUGIB of variceal etiologies benefited from prophylactic antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

AUGIB patients may benefit from prophylactic antibiotics to decrease mortality, especially those aged ≥ 65 years and those with endotracheal intubation, endoscopic treatment, and variceal etiologies.

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.

The role of antibiotics in upper gastrointestinal bleeding among cirrhotic patients without major complications after endoscopic hemostasis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Antibiotic prophylaxis should be instituted for cirrhotic patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), but the benefit on compensated patients remains undetermined. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between cirrhotic patients without major complications with UGIB with and without antibiotic prophylaxis.

METHODS

We conducted this population-based cohort study by using Taiwanese Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2000 (LHID2000, between 1997 to 2013), aged 18 years or older with a hospital discharge diagnosis of cirrhosis (n = 64,506), UGIB (n = 7,784), and endoscopic therapy (n = 2,292). After strict exclusions, 1205 patients were enrolled and were divided into antibiotic exposure (n = 558) and non-exposure (n = 647) groups. The outcomes were rebleeding and mortality.

RESULTS

After completing the analysis adjusted by death, the rebleeding rates within 4 weeks were significantly lower in patients with antibiotic prophylaxis (3.05% versus 6.03%, P = 0.0142) and those with endoscopic therapy (0.72% vs 3.09%, P = 0.0033) but not significant after 3 months and onwards. Male patients aged > 55, high CCI score ≧ 4, and UGIB of variceal etiologies were benefited from rebleeding. The use of antibiotics did not significantly impact 6-week mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.07, 95%CI: 0.41~2.75; P = 0.8943). Old age, multiple comorbidities, and UGIB of variceal etiologies were risk factors of all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study suggested that cirrhotic patients without major complications who suffered from UGIB were benefited by the use of antibiotics to prevent rebleeding within 4 weeks after endoscopic treatment of UGIB especially for those with age > 55, high CCI score ≧ 4, and UGIB of variceal etiologies.

The current knowledge about the therapeutic use of endoscopic sclerotherapy and endoscopic tissue adhesives in variceal bleeding

Introduction: The most recent guidelines vary in their approach to the management of variceal bleeding especially with the use of endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) and endoscopic tissue adhesive (ETA). This review highlights their clinical use for variceal bleeding from different guidelines perspectives. Areas covered: A comprehensive literature review of three major guidelines including the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) 2017, United Kingdom (UK) guidelines 2015 and Baveno VI Consensus workshop guidelines in 2015 on the use of ES and ETA in variceal bleeding. Expert opinion: While endoscopic band ligation (EBL) completely replaced endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) for esophageal varices. There is a valuable use of endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) and endoscopic tissue adhesive (ETA) especially for patients with gastroesophageal varices (GOV2) and isolated gastric varices (IGV2). The current standard of care heading toward portosystemic shunting with Trans-jugular-Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (TIPS) and balloon retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO). However, recent advancement in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) allowing direct injection of sclerosant and tissue adhesive into the varix bringing promising results in achieving hemostasis and lowering the risk of complications. Also, ES and ETA have great clinical value in achieving hemostasis for isolated (ectopic) varices and stomal varices.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INVASIVE PROCEDURES IN PATIENTS WITH DISEASES OF THE LIVER AND BILIARY TRACT: REPORT OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF HEPATOLOGY (SBH), BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY (SOBED) AND BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY (SOBRICE)

Liver and biliary tract diseases are common causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Invasive procedures are usually performed in those patients with hepatobiliary diseases for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Defining proper indications and restraints of commonly used techniques is crucial for proper patient selection, maximizing positive results and limiting complications. In 2018, the Brazilian Society of Hepato-logy (SBH) in cooperation with the Brazilian Society of Interventional Radiology and Endovascular surgery (SOBRICE) and the Brazilian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SOBED) sponsored a joint single-topic meeting on invasive procedures in patients with hepatobiliary diseases. This paper summarizes the proceedings of the aforementioned meeting. It is intended to guide clinicians, gastroenterologists, hepatologists, radiologists, and endoscopists for the proper use of invasive procedures for management of patients with hepatobiliary diseases.

The 35-year odyssey of beta blockers in cirrhosis: any gender difference in sight?

Cirrhosis is the end-stage of chronic liver disease and leads to the development of portal hypertension and its complications such as esophagogastric varices. Non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) are the keystone for the treatment of portal hypertension since the 1980s and, over the decades, several studies have confirmed their beneficial effect on the prevention of variceal (re)bleeding. Pharmacological studies showed effects of gender, sex hormones, oral contraceptives, and pregnancy on cytochrome P450 (CYPs) enzymes that metabolise NSBB, suggesting that gender differences might exist in the effect of NSBB. In this review, we focused on the 35-year knowledge about the use of beta blockers in cirrhosis and potential gender differences. We specifically examined the role of NSBB in pre-primary, primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, compared two commonly used NSBB (i.e., Propranolol and Carvedilol), and present the current controversies about the window of treatment in advanced cirrhosis with a specific focus on gender differences in NSBB effects. NSBB are not currently recommended in pre-primary prophylaxis of varices mainly because of lack of proven efficacy. On the other hand, NSBB are strongly recommended in patient with cirrhosis as primary (as alternative to endoscopic band ligation, EBL) and secondary prophylaxis (in addition to EBL) of variceal bleeding. To date, no studies have focused specifically on the effect of gender on NSBB treatment. Data extrapolated from clinical studies show that gender was neither a risk factor for the development of varices nor associated with a different response to treatment in primary or secondary prophylaxis. According to the available guidelines, no different, gender-based treatment for portal hypertension is recommended.

Medical expenses in treating acute esophageal variceal bleeding: A 15-year nationwide population-based cohort study

Acute variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis is related to high mortality and medical expenses. The purpose of present studies was to analyze the medical expenses in treating acute esophageal variceal bleeding among patients with cirrhosis and potential influencing clinical factors.A total of 151,863 patients with cirrhosis with International Classification of Diseases-9 codes 456.0 and 456.20 were analyzed from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 2010. Time intervals were divided into three phases for analysis as T1 (1996-2000), T2 (2001-2005), and T3 (2006-2010). The endpoints were prevalence, length of hospital stay, medical expenses, and mortality rate.Our results showed that more patients were <65 years (75.6%) and of male sex (78.5%). Patients were mostly from teaching hospitals (90.8%) with high hospital volume (50.9%) and high doctor service load (51.1%). The prevalence of acute esophageal variceal bleeding and mean length of hospital stay decreased over the years (P < 0.001), but the overall medical expenses increased (P < 0.001). Multiple regression analysis showed that older age, female sex, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score >1, patients from teaching hospitals, and medium to high or very high patient numbers were independent factors for longer hospital stay and higher medical expenses. Aged patients, female sex, increased CCI score, and low doctor service volume were independent factors for both in-hospital and 5-year mortality. Patients from teaching hospitals and medium to high or very high service volume hospitals were independent factors for in-hospital mortality, but not 5-year mortality.Medical expenses in treating acute esophageal variceal bleeding increased despite the decreased prevalence rate and length of hospital stay in Taiwan. Aged patients, female sex, patients with increased CCI score from teaching hospitals, and medium to high or very high patient numbers were the independent factors for increased medical expenses.

U.K. guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients

These updated guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage have been commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee (CSSC) of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the liver section of the BSG. The original guidelines which this document supersedes were written in 2000 and have undergone extensive revision by 13 members of the Guidelines Development Group (GDG). The GDG comprises elected members of the BSG liver section, representation from British Association for the Study of the Liver (BASL) and Liver QuEST, a nursing representative and a patient representative. The quality of evidence and grading of recommendations was appraised using the AGREE II tool.The nature of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients with its complex range of complications makes rigid guidelines inappropriate. These guidelines deal specifically with the management of varices in patients with cirrhosis under the following subheadings: (1) primary prophylaxis; (2) acute variceal haemorrhage; (3) secondary prophylaxis of variceal haemorrhage; and (4) gastric varices. They are not designed to deal with (1) the management of the underlying liver disease; (2) the management of variceal haemorrhage in children; or (3) variceal haemorrhage from other aetiological conditions.

Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

Gastroesophageal varices are present in almost half of patients with cirrhosis at the time of initial diagnosis. Variceal bleeding occurs in 25% to 35% of patients with cirrhosis. Effective and timely care can prevent variceal bleeding (primary prophylaxis). For example, clinical studies demonstrate that both beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation are effective in preventing a first episode of variceal bleeding. The major challenge is to screen patients in a timely manner and institute a form of therapy that has the highest chance of success in terms of patient compliance and effectiveness.

Therapeutic and prophylactic management of bleeding from oesophageal and gastric varices - recommendations of the Working Group of the National Consultant for Gastroenterology

Gastroesophageal varices are one of the most serious consequences of portal hypertension. One-third of patients with varices will develop variceal haemorrhage. Despite significant improvements in the outcomes of treatment, mortality due to bleeding from gastro-oesophageal varices still remains very high. These recommendations present optimal management of patients with non-bleeding and bleeding varices.

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.

Combined therapies versus monotherapies for the first variceal bleeding in patients with high-risk varices: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The effect of combined therapies (among non-selected beta-blockers [NSBB], endoscopic therapy, and other treatments) on the first variceal bleeding has been evaluated in several randomized controlled trials previously, and the results were controversial. We performed this meta-analysis to assess the effect of combined therapies in patients with high-risk varices without previous variceal bleeding.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for eligible trials. Manual searches were also performed for additional studies. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding, variceal bleeding, mortality, and adverse events were evaluated as end-points by meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled trials with 1571 patients were included. Compared with the NSBB (propranolol or nadolol) or endoscopic therapy alone, all of the combined therapies did not demonstrate significant improvements in variceal bleeding, total upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and mortality. Only the combinations of isosorbide-mononitrate or spironolactone with NSBB tended to decrease the risk of variceal bleeding when compared with the use of NSBB alone (isosorbide-mononitrate plus NSBB vs NSBB: odds ratio = 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.40-1.13, P = 0.13; spironolactone plus NSBB vs NSBB: odds ratio = 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.10-1.69, P = 0.22). Adverse events were more frequently observed in the combined therapy groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidences, no combined therapy can be recommended as the first-line treatment for the primary prevention of variceal bleeding currently. Further studies with large sample sizes and long-term follow up are warranted.

Efficacy of endoscopic intervention alone versus endoscopic intervention plus propranolol in the prophylaxis of esophageal variceal rebleeding

AIM: To compar e the efficacy of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) or endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) alone versus EVL or EIS plus propranolol in the prophylaxis of esophageal variceal rebleeding.

METHODS: Sixty-nine cirrhotic patients were divided randomly into endoscopic intervention group (EIG, n = 40; EVL or EIS) and combination intervention group (CIG, n = 29; EVL or EIS plus propranolol). The mortality, mortality due to rebleeding, and rate of rebleeding were compared between the two groups. All patients were followed for more than one year. In addition, changes in endoscopic characteristics of esophageal varices were evaluated according to the criterion of the Japan Society for Portal Hypertension.

RESULTS: There were no significantly differences in liver function, routine blood parameters, and serum electrolytes between the two groups. After intervention, the diameter of varices decreased significantly in the EIG group (10.92 ± 2.91 vs 8.45 ± 2.26, P < 0.05), but showed no significance in the CIG group (10.14 ± 2.46 vs 8.95 ± 2.21, P > 0.05). The distance from the proximal end of varices to the fore-tooth (22.79 ± 2.83 vs 24.85 ± 3.96, P < 0.05) and the rate of recurrence of red signs in varices (100% vs 76.19%, P < 0.05) decreased significantly after intervention in the CIG group. The morbidity of gastric varices and portal hypertensive gastropathy were both higher after intervention in the CIG group (10.34% vs 28.10%, P < 0.05; 10.34% vs 42.86%, P < 0.05). The appearance of varices in both groups changed from rosary-like to earthworm-like pattern. The rate of rebleeding between two groups displayed no significant difference (50.00% vs 51.71%, P > 0.05). However, the mortality in the CIG group was significantly lower than that in the EIG group (27.50% vs 7.41%, P < 0.05), and the main cause of death in both groups was upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

CONCLUSION: Endoscopic intervention combined with propranolol can decrease the risk of death and reduce endoscopic re-bleeding in the prevention of esophageal variceal re-bleeding.

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.

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.

Effect of propranolol on portal pressure and systemic hemodynamics in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension: a prospective study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Propranolol can prevent variceal bleeding by ameliorating portal hypertension. We conducted this study to determine the effect of propranolol on portal hypertension and the optimal required dose in Korean cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

This study prospectively evaluated 50 patients with cirrhosis who exhibited variceal bleeding. The hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), portal venous flow, heart rate (HR), and blood pressure were assessed both at baseline and at 3 months after the treatment. The initial dose of propranolol (20 mg) was subsequently adjusted until the target HR was reached. Patients in whom HVPG reduced by >20% or to less than 12 mmHg were defined as responders.

RESULTS

Propranolol significantly (p<0.01) reduced the HVPG (-21+/-26%, mean+/-standard deviation), portal venous flow (-25+/-21%), HR (-20+/-13%), and blood pressure (-3+/-13%). Twenty-nine patients were responders, and the optimal required dose was 154.4 mg. The main complication was dizziness (24%), but this was not serious enough to require medication withdrawal.

CONCLUSIONS

Propranolol is safe and effective at reducing portal pressure in Korean cirrhotic patients. An effective improvement in portal hypertension requires the dose to be increased until the target HR is reached.

Banding ligation versus beta-blockers as primary prophylaxis in esophageal varices: systematic review of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare banding ligation versus beta-blockers as primary prophylaxis in patients with esophageal varices and no previous bleeding.

METHODS

Randomized trials were identified through electronic databases, reference lists in relevant articles, and correspondence with experts. Three authors extracted data. Random effects meta-analysis and metaregression were performed. The reported allocation sequence generation and concealment were extracted as measures of bias control.

RESULTS

The initial searches identified 1,174 references. Sixteen trials were included. In 15 trials, patients had high-risk varices. Three trials reported adequate bias control. All trials reported mortality for banding ligation (116/573 patients) and beta-blockers (115/594 patients). Mortality in the two treatment groups was not significantly different in the trials with adequate bias control (relative risk 1.22, 95% CI 0.84-1.78) or unclear bias control (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75-1.39). Trials with adequate bias control found no significant difference in bleeding rates (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55-1.35). Trials with unclear bias control found that banding ligation significantly reduced bleeding (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41-0.77). Both treatments were associated with adverse events. In metaregression analyses, the estimated effect of ligation was significantly more positive if trials were published as abstracts. Likewise, the shorter the follow-up, the more positive the estimated effect of ligation.

CONCLUSIONS

Banding ligation and beta-blockers may be used as primary prophylaxis in high-risk esophageal varices. The estimated effect of banding ligation in some trials may be biased and was associated with the duration of follow-up. Further high-quality trials are still needed.

Improved prognosis for patients hospitalized with esophageal varices in Sweden 1969-2002

Liver cirrhosis may be complicated by the development of esophageal varices. The treatment of esophageal varices has changed radically during the last 30 years. Our aim was to study whether the prognosis for patients with esophageal varices had improved in Sweden between 1969 and 2002. We linked register data from the Hospital Discharge Register and from the Causes of Death Register at The National Board of Health in Sweden between 1969 and 2002 to identify and follow-up all patients with esophageal varices according to International Classification of Diseases-8, -9, and -10. There were 12,281 patients hospitalized with esophageal varices, and for all patients there was an increase in the 5-year survival in the years between 1969 and 1979 as opposed to the years between 1990 and 2002. Better survival occurred for women compared with men, for younger patients compared with older, and for patients hospitalized in the latest decade compared with the earlier decades. We found a significant decrease in the mortality caused by esophageal varices during the years studied but no decrease attributable to other causes. In conclusion, mortality for patients hospitalized with esophageal varices in Sweden decreased between 1969 and 2002. The decrease is seen for both 1- and 5-year mortality, and this suggests that the use of new treatment strategies both for acute variceal hemorrhage and secondary prophylaxis has had an impact on prognosis.

Meta analysis of propranolol effects on gastrointestinal hemorrhage in cirrhotic patients

AIM: To assess the effects of propranolol as compared with placebo on gastrointestinal hemorrhage and total mortality in cirrhotic patients by using meta analysis of 20 published randomized clinical trials.

METHODS: A meta analysis of published randomized clinical trials was designed. Published articles were selected for study based on a computerized MEDLINE and a manual search of the bibliographies of relevant articles. Data from 20 relevant studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were retrieved by means of computerized and manual search. The reported data were extracted on the basis of the intention-to-treat principle, and treatment effects were measured as risk differences between propranolol and placebo. Pooled estimates were computed according to a random-effects model. We evaluated the pooled efficacy of propranolol on the risk of gastrointestinal hemorrhage and the total mortality.

RESULTS: A total of 1859 patients were included in 20 trials, 931 in the propranolol groups and 928 as controls. Among the 652 patients with upper gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage, 261 patients were treated with propranolol, and 396 patients were treated with placebo or non-treated. Pooled risk differences of gastrointestinal hemorrhage were -18% [95%CI, -25%, -10%] in all trials, -11% [95%CI, -21%, -1%] in primary prevention trials, and -25% [95%CI, -39%, -10%] in secondary prevention trials. A total of 440 patients died, 188 in propranolol groups and 252 in control groups. Pooled risk differences of total death were -7% [95%CI, -12%, -3%] in all trials, -9% [95%CI, -18%, -1%] in primary prevention trials, and -5% [95%CI, -9%, -1%] in secondary prevention trials.

CONCLUSION: Propranolol can markedly reduce the risks of both primary and recurrent gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and also the total mortality.

Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy in the management of 2105 patients with esophageal varices

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study is to examine the overall clinical results of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) for patients with esophageal varices in our institution.

METHODS

From January 1982 to May 2001, 2105 patients with esophageal varices were treated with EIS, which included prophylactic injections for patients with risky varices according to our criteria. Follow-up endoscopy was performed every 3 months, and recurrent varices were treated with additional EIS.

RESULTS

Acute variceal bleeding was controlled in 468 of 473 patients (98.9%). Esophageal varices were completely eradicated in 1757 of 2105 patients (83.5%) with 3.8 +/- 1.6 sessions of EIS. The cumulative recurrence rates were 32.2% at 5 years, 36.5% at 10 years, and 37.8% at 15 years. The cumulative nonbleeding rates were 92.3% at 5 years, 90.1% at 10 years, and 89.5% at 15 years. The survival rate of acute bleeders was significantly lower than for both elective and prophylactic cases (P <.05). The overall cumulative survival rate was 28.2% at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

EIS is the first choice of treatment for esophageal variceal bleeding, and rebleeding was shown to be well controlled in a long-term follow-up with endoscopy and additional EIS. The lower survival rate observed in acute bleeders may therefore justify the use of prophylactic EIS.

Portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is the main complication of cirrhosis and is responsible for its most common complications: variceal hemorrhage, ascites, and portosystemic encephalopathy. Portal hypertension is the result of increased intrahepatic resistance and increased portal venous inflow, which in turn is the result of splanchnic vasodilatation. Vasodilatation (splanchnic and systemic) and hyperdynamic circulation are hemodynamic abnormalities typical of cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Gastroesophageal varices result almost solely from portal hypertension, although the hyperdynamic circulation contributes to variceal growth and hemorrhage. Ascites results from sinusoidal hypertension and sodium retention, which is, in turn, secondary to vasodilatation and activation of neurohumoral systems. The hepatorenal syndrome represents the result of extreme vasodilatation with an extreme decrease in effective blood volume that leads to maximal activation of vasoconstrictive systems, renal vasoconstriction, and renal failure. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is a potentially lethal infection of ascites that occurs in the absence of a local source of infection. Portosystemic encephalopathy is a consequence of both portal hypertension (shunting of blood through portosystemic collaterals) and hepatic insufficiency that result in the accumulation of neurotoxins in the brain. This paper reviews the recent advances in the pathophysiology and management of the complications of portal hypertension.

Review article: a drug therapy for the prevention of variceal haemorrhage

The development of varices is a major complication of cirrhosis, and variceal haemorrhage has a high mortality. There have been major advances in the primary and secondary prevention of variceal haemorrhage over the last 20 years involving endoscopic, radiological and pharmacological approaches. This review concentrates principally on drug therapy, particularly on the numerous haemodynamic studies. Many of these drugs have not been studied in clinical trials, but provide data about the underlying pathogenesis of portal hypertension. Also covered in this review are the randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses that involve a large number of patients. These trials involve relatively few drugs such as non-selective beta-blockers and nitrates. Correlations between haemodynamic and clinical parameters are discussed. Despite the recent increase in the use of alternative endoscopic therapies, an effective and well tolerated drug remains a clinically important research goal.

Review article: primary prophylaxis for portal hypertensive bleeding in cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is a consequence of portal hypertension, which in turn is the major complication of hepatic cirrhosis. Given the high rate of mortality of the first bleeding episode, primary prophylaxis to prevent bleeding from varices and portal hypertensive gastropathy is the current optimal therapeutic approach. The difficulty in identification of patients with varices who will bleed, before they do so, can justify a strategy of treating all patients with varices prophylactically. We evaluated the various therapies that have been assessed in randomized controlled trials for prevention of first bleeding, using meta-analysis where applicable. The current first choice treatment is non-selective beta-blockers; it is cheap, easy to administer, and is effective in preventing the first variceal haemorrhage and bleeding from gastric mucosa. Combination drug therapy of beta-blockers and nitrates looks promising, but needs further evaluation in randomized controlled trials. The conflicting results of the randomized studies of endoscopic banding ligation and the small number of patients and clinical events, as well as the cost, do not warrant any change in current practice. However, endoscopic banding ligation may be a reasonable alternative for patients who cannot tolerate, or have contraindications to beta-blockers or no haemodynamic response to the drug therapy, but this must be proved in randomized trials.