Prophylactic portacaval anastomosis

Role of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt in the Management of Portal Hypertension: Review and Update of the Literature

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is a well-established procedure used in the management of complications of portal hypertension. Although the most robust evidence supports the use of TIPS as salvage therapy in variceal hemorrhage, secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and treatment of refractory ascites, there is also data to suggest its efficacy in other indications such as hepatic hydrothorax, hepatorenal syndrome, and Budd-Chiari syndrome. Recent literature also suggests that TIPS may improve survival for certain subpopulations if placed early after variceal bleeding. This article provides an updated evidence-based review of the indications for TIPS. Outcomes, complications, and adequate patient selection are also discussed.

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.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts and portal hypertension-related complications

Portal hypertension (PH) plays an important role in the natural history of cirrhosis, and is associated with several clinical consequences. The introduction of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) in the 1980s has been regarded as a major technical advance in the management of the PH-related complications. At present, polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents are the preferred option over traditional bare metal stents. TIPS is currently indicated as a salvage therapy in patients with bleeding esophageal varices who fail standard treatment. Recently, applying TIPS early (within 72 h after admission) has been shown to be an effective and life-saving treatment in those with high-risk variceal bleeding. In addition, TIPS is recommended as the second-line treatment for secondary prophylaxis. For bleeding gastric varices, applying TIPS was able to achieve hemostasis in more than 90% of patients. More trials are needed to clarify the efficacy of TIPS compared with other treatment modalities, including cyanoacrylate injection and balloon retrograde transvenous obliteration of gastric varices. TIPS should also be considered in bleeding ectopic varices and refractory portal hypertensive gastropathy. In patients with refractory ascites, there is growing evidence that TIPS not only results in better control of ascites, but also improves long-term survival in appropriately selected candidates. In addition, TIPS is a promising treatment for refractory hepatic hydrothorax. However, the role of TIPS in the treatment of hepatorenal and hepatopulmonary syndrome is not well defined. The advantage of TIPS is offset by a risk of developing hepatic encephalopathy, the most relevant post-procedural complication. Emerging data are addressing the determination the optimal time and patient selection for TIPS placement aiming at improving long-term treatment outcome. This review is aimed at summarizing the published data regarding the application of TIPS in the management of complications related to PH.

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.

Pre-primary and Primary Prophylaxis of Variceal Hemorrhage

Variceal hemorrhage is a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension. Thus, prevention of variceal formation (pre-primary prophylaxis) or at least prevention of variceal bleeding are important goals to improve life quality and—if possible—survival of patients with liver cirrhosis. Interruption of the underlying cause of liver disease is the most successful approach, which, however, often fails. For this situation interruption or modulation of different pathophysiological mechanisms leading to fibrosis, hyperdynamic circulation and portal hypertension have been shown effective in animal models. But few could be translated to humans. By contrast, different steps to prevent first bleeding from varices have proven successful in many clinical trials. These applied mainly drugs to lower portal pressure, such as nonselective β-blockers, or endoscopic obliteration of varices, while prophylactic shunt procedures are not advised.

The role of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Stent-Shunt (TIPSS) in the management of variceal hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Variceal bleeding in cirrhosis represents a lethal complication of their disease. In the last 20 years, management of AVH has improved greatly with reduction in mortality from 43% in 1980 to 15% in 2000.

AIM

Advances in endoscopic therapy, pharmacologic agents including vasoconstrictor therapy and antibiotics have played a large part in improving outcomes, but the role of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Stent-Shunt (TIPSS) remains controversial, which this review will cover.

METHODS

MEDLINE search for the following terms was performed to July 2011: variceal hemorrhage, portal hypertension, cirrhosis, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt (TIPSS), PTFE, covered stents. Where possible randomized controlled studies were used for this review, although uncontrolled studies were also included if they made a significant contribution to the literature.

RESULTS

Literature used for the present study was selected from a total of 252 publications and abstracts from meetings.

RESULTS

TIPSS has been used as a salvage therapy after initial medical and endoscopic therapy for the bleed given its high success rate in arresting uncontrolled variceal bleeding. The recent trial by Garcia- Pagan et al. suggested beneficial effects of an earlier covered TIPSS in those at high risk of treatment failure (Childs C and those who are Childs B with active bleeding).

CONCLUSIONS

TIPSS can reduce failure to control bleeding and rebleeding as well as mortality with no increase in the risk of hepatic encephalopathy.This needs to be confirmed in further trials. However, it is clear that prevention of rebleeding is the key to improved outcomes following a variceal bleed.

The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the treatment of portal hypertension: current status

The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) represents a major advance in the treatment of complications of portal hypertension. Technical improvements and increased experience over the past 24 years led to improved clinical results and a better definition of the indications for TIPS. Randomized clinical trials indicate that the TIPS procedure is not a first-line therapy for variceal bleeding, but can be used when medical treatment fails, both in the acute situation or to prevent variceal rebleeding. The role of TIPS to treat refractory ascites is probably more justified to improve the quality of life rather than to improve survival, except for patients with preserved liver function. It can be helpful for hepatic hydrothorax and can reverse hepatorenal syndrome in selected cases. It is a good treatment for Budd Chiari syndrome uncontrollable by medical treatment. Careful selection of patients is mandatory before TIPS, and clinical followup is essential to detect and treat complications that may result from TIPS stenosis (which can be prevented by using covered stents) and chronic encephalopathy (which may in severe cases justify reduction or occlusion of the shunt). A multidisciplinary approach, including the resources for liver transplantation, is always required to treat these patients.

Management of varices in cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

Acute variceal bleeding is a medical emergency and one of the main causes of mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Timely and effective treatment of the acute bleeding episode results in increased survival, and appropriate prophylactic treatment can prevent bleeding or rebleeding from varices.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss the prevention of development and growth of varices, the primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding, the treatment of acute bleeding, and the management of gastric varices. We systematically reviewed studies, without time limits, identified through Medline and searches of reference lists, and provide an overview of the evidence underlying the -treatment options in the management of varices in cirrhosis.

EXPERT OPINION

The management of variceal hemorrhage relies on nonspecific interventions (e.g., adequate fluid resuscitation, airway protection) and on specific interventions. These are routine prophylactic antibiotics, vasoactive drugs and endoscopic treatment. Procedures such as the placement of a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube or a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) can be lifesaving. The primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding is based on nonselective beta-blockers and endoscopy, even though TIPS or, less frequently, surgery have a role in selected cases.

Defining the threshold: new data on the ability of capsule endoscopy to discriminate the size of esophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy, EGD) to screen for esophageal varices (EV) is recommended in patients with portal hypertension. Reports indicate that capsule endoscopy (CE) is capable of identifying large/medium varices (L/MV) when the varix comprises more than 25% of the circumference of the field of view.

AIMS

We evaluated the ability of CE to discriminate the size of EV using this grading scale.

METHODS

Patients underwent CE and EGD on the same day. A blinded investigator interpreted capsule findings. CE labeled EV as L/MV if ≥25% of the lumen circumference was occupied, and small/none for <25%.

RESULTS

A total of 37 patients were enrolled in this prospective, observational study at a single tertiary-care academic center. Three CE were excluded due to rapid esophageal transit time or technical malfunction. Using a 25% threshold, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for EC to discriminate L/MV were 23.5%, 88.2%, 66.7%, and 53.6%, respectively (κ=0.12). Reducing the threshold to 12.5% resulted in sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 88.2%, 64.7%, 71.4%, and 84.6%, respectively (κ=0.53). A receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve showed a 15% threshold to be optimal in discriminating EV size using CE, resulting in sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 76.5%, 82.4%, 81.3%, and 77.8%, respectively (κ=0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that discriminating EV size by the current capsule scale is unreliable. Lowering the grading threshold improved the ability to discriminate EV size by CE. In the proper context, CE is an alternative to EGD to screen for EV.

Survival after portacaval shunt: who and how?

In a series of 74 portacaval-shunted patients no statistically significant differences in long-term survival or in incidence of postoperative encephalopathy have been observed between electively and emergency operated patients, between patients with slight and moderate impairment of liver function (groups A and B according to Child) or between patients with alcoholic and non-alcoholic cirrhosis. Patients older than 60 years had a higher risk of postoperative encephalopathy and a border-line significantly lower survival rate six months after the operation. Among the patients with more than six months' survival, about 50% returned to work.

Non-respondents in a post-myocardial infarction trial: characteristics and reasons for refusal

We surveyed the 270 survivors of acute myocardial infarction who refused to participate in the Warfarin Re-Infarction Study (WARIS). Information on medical variables were derived from registration forms completed by hospital staff upon discharge, whereas data on a variety of health conditions and reasons for refusal were gathered by mailed questionnaires, 178 (66%) of which were returned. Some disparities were found when comparing non-respondents and participants, the former showing more potential bad risk factors. The diversities between participants and non-respondents are of yet unknown prognostic importance. However, the presence of such differences imply that information on characteristics of non-respondents in clinical trials is desirable in terms of generalizability of the trial results. Reasons stated for non-participation reflect poor motivation, low mobility and saturation with focusing on disease. A slight co-variation between social status and reasons for refusal was noted.

Esophageal capsule endoscopy

Capsule endoscopy is now considered as the first imaging tool for small bowel examination. Recently, new capsule endoscopy applications have been developed, such as esophageal capsule endoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy. Esophageal capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected esophageal disorders is feasible and safe, and could be also an alternative procedure in those patients refusing upper endoscopy. Although large-scale studies are needed to confirm its utility in GERD and cirrhotic patients, current results are encouraging and open a new era in esophageal examination.

Patency of stents covered with polytetrafluoroethylene in patients treated by transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts: long-term results of a randomized multicentre study

An 80% dysfunction rate at 2 years limits the use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) in the treatment of complications of portal hypertension. The use of covered stents could improve shunt patency; however, long-term effect and safety remain unknown. Eighty patients randomized to be treated by TIPS either with a covered stent (Group 1) or an uncovered prosthesis (Group 2) were followed-up for 2 years. Doppler US was performed every 3 months. Angiography and portosystemic pressure gradient measurement were performed every 6 months or whenever dysfunction was suspected. Actuarial rates of primary patency in Groups 1 and 2 were 76% and 36% respectively (P=0.001). Clinical relapse occurred in four patients (10%) in Group 1 and 12 (29%) in Group 2 (P<0.05). Actuarial rates of being free of encephalopathy were 67% in Group 1 and 51% in Group 2 (P<0.05). Probability of survival was 58% and 45% at 2 years, respectively, in Groups 1 and 2 (NS). The mean Child-Pugh score improved only in Group 1 (from 8.1+/-1.6 to 7+/-2.2 at 2 years -P<0.05). We also compared the Doppler-US parameters between patent and dysfunctioning shunts. In patent shunts, the mean velocity within the portal vein was significantly higher but the performance of Doppler-US was not accurate enough to predict shunt dysfunction. In conclusion, the improvement in TIPS patency by using covered prostheses is maintained over time with a decreased risk of encephalopathy, while the risk of death was not increased.

Endoscopic variceal ligation versus propranolol in prophylaxis of first variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) with propranolol in prophylaxis on the rate of first esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized trial was conducted in 100 cirrhotic patients with no history of previous upper gastrointestinal bleeding and with esophageal varices endoscopically judged to be at high risk of hemorrhage. The end-points of the study were bleeding and death.

RESULTS

Life-table curves showed that prophylactic EVL and propranolol were similarly effective for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding (11/50 [22%]vs 12/50 [24%]; P = 0.68) and overall mortality (14/50 [28%]vs 12/50 [24%]; P = 0.49). The 2-year cumulative bleeding rate was 18% (9/50) in the EVL group and 16% (8/50) in the propranolol group. The 2-year cumulative mortality rate was 28% (14/50) in the EVL group and 24% (12/50) in the propranolol group. Comparison of Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to death of both groups showed no significant difference in mortality in both groups (P = 0.86). Patients undergoing EVL had few treatment failures and died mainly of hepatic failure. In the propranolol group, the mean daily dosage of the drug was 68.2 +/- 32.8 mg, which was sufficient to reduce the pulse rate by 25%. 20% of patients withdrew from propranolol treatment due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis EVL is as effective and as safe as treatment with propranolol in decreasing the incidence of first variceal bleeding and death in cirrhotic patients with high-risk esophageal varices.

Diagnosis and treatment of portal hypertension

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

Endoscopic sclerotherapy compared with no specific treatment for the primary prevention of bleeding from esophageal varices. A randomized controlled multicentre trial [ISRCTN03215899]

BACKGROUND

Since esophageal variceal bleeding is associated with a high mortality rate, prevention of bleeding might be expected to result in improved survival. The first trials to evaluate prophylactic sclerotherapy found a marked beneficial effect of prophylactic treatment. These results, however, were not generally accepted because of methodological aspects and because the reported incidence of bleeding in control subjects was considered unusually high. The objective of this study was to compare endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) with nonactive treatment for the primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

166 patients with esophageal varices grade II, III of IV according to Paquet's classification, with evidence of active or progressive liver disease and without prior variceal bleeding, were randomized to groups receiving ES (n = 84) or no specific treatment (n = 82). Primary end-points were incidence of bleeding and mortality; secondary end-points were complications and costs.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 32 months variceal bleeding occurred in 25% of the patients of the ES group and in 28% of the control group. The incidence of variceal bleeding for the ES and control group was 16% and 16% at 1 year and 33% and 29% at 3 years, respectively. The 1-year survival rate was 87% for the ES group and 84% for the control group; the 3-year survival rate was 62% for each group. In the ES group one death occurred as a direct consequence of variceal bleeding compared to 9 in the other group (p = 0.01, log-rank test). Complications were comparable for the two groups. Health care costs for patients assigned to ES were estimated to be higher. Meta-analysis of a large number of trials showed that the effect of prophylactic sclerotherapy is significantly related to the baseline bleeding risk.

CONCLUSION

In the present trial, prophylactic sclerotherapy did not reduce the incidence of bleeding from varices in patients with liver cirrhosis and a low to moderate bleeding risk. Although sclerotherapy lowered mortality attributable to variceal bleeding, overall survival was not affected. The effect of prophylactic sclerotherapy seems dependent on the underlying bleeding risk. A beneficial effect can only be expected for patients with a high risk for bleeding.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: current status

The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) was developed in the 1980s for treatment of complications of portal hypertension. Once it was shown that the shunt could be placed with relative ease, TIPS was rapidly applied to the treatment of many of the complications of portal hypertension. These complications include actively bleeding gastroesophageal varices, prevention of rebleeding from varices, control of refractory cirrhotic ascites and hepatic hydrothorax, and treatment of hepatorenal failure and hepatopulmonary syndrome. TIPS has also been used as therapy for Budd-Chiari syndrome and veno-occlusive disease. Despite these broad applications, TIPS has been compared with other forms of therapy in only 2 situations: prevention of rebleeding from varices and control of refractory cirrhotic ascites. In the trials, TIPS was shown to provide better control of these 2 complications of portal hypertension than standard forms of therapy. However, there was no improvement in survival and the incidence of encephalopathy was greater for patients receiving a TIPS. Thus, the use of TIPS for the control of ascites and prevention of rebleeding from varices should be limited to a select group of patients. There have been no controlled trials for the other indications listed. Despite the apparent efficacy of TIPS in many of these situations, its use should be limited to salvage therapy pending the publication of controlled trials showing it is a better treatment than other forms of therapy.

Nadolol plus spironolactone in the prophylaxis of first variceal bleed in nonascitic cirrhotic patients: A preliminary study

Treatment with beta-blockers fails to decrease portal pressure in nearly 40% of cirrhotic patients. Recent studies have suggested that treatment with spironolactone reduces pressure and flow in the portal and variceal systems. This trial was designed to assess if nadolol plus spironolactone is more effective than nadolol alone to prevent the first variceal bleeding. One hundred patients with medium and large varices who had never bled and were without ascites were included in a prospective, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The patients were randomized into 2 groups: 51 received nadolol plus placebo (N + P) and 49 received nadolol plus spironolactone 100 mg/d (N + S). Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and activity of the renin-aldosterone system (plasma renin activity/plasma aldosterone levels) were measured in 24 patients. There were no significant differences in the appearance of variceal bleeding and ascites between groups at a mean follow-up of 22 +/- 16 months. However, analyzing both complications together, the incidence was significantly higher in the N + P group than in the N + S group (39% vs. 20%; P <.04). Clinical ascites was also higher in patients in the N + P group than in the N + S group (21% vs. 6%; P <.04). Significant increases in plasma renin activity and plasma aldosterone levels were only observed in patients in the N + S group (P <.01). The cumulative probabilities of remaining free of bleeding and ascites were similar in both groups after 70 months of follow-up. In conclusion, these results suggest that nadolol plus spironolactone does not increase the efficacy of nadolol alone in the prophylaxis of the first variceal bleeding. However, when bleeding and ascites were considered together, the combined therapy effectively reduced the incidence of both portal-hypertensive complications.

Nadolol is superior to isosorbide mononitrate for the prevention of the first variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with ascites

BACKGROUND/AIMS

beta-blockers effectively prevent first variceal bleeding (FVB) in cirrhotic patients. In patients with ascites, however, their use might be precluded by a high rate of contraindications and side effects. We compared the efficacy and applicability of nadolol and isosorbide-mononitrate (IsMn) in preventing FVB in a population of cirrhotic patients at high risk of variceal bleeding with ascites, who can be frequently intolerant to beta-blockers.

METHODS

A total of 80 consecutive cirrhotic patients with ascites and esophageal varices (25% average risk of bleeding at 1 year) were considered, 28 were excluded due to contraindications and 52 were randomly assigned to receive nadolol (n=25) or IsMn (n=27).

RESULTS

Frequency of contraindications was greater for beta-blockers than IsMn (35 versus 0%, P=0.001). During 21.3+/-11.6 months of follow-up, side effects forced six patients taking nadolol and four taking IsMn to stop treatment. Bleeding occurred in two patients taking nadolol and ten taking IsMn. The probability of bleeding was significantly lower in the nadolol group (P<0.05), whereas overall survival was similar (seven patients on IsMn and eight on nadolol died, P=0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ascites IsMn is tolerated but ineffective while nadolol is effective but less tolerated.

Endoscopic screening for varices in cirrhosis: findings, implications, and outcomes

At least two thirds of cirrhotic patients develop esophageal varices during their lifetime. Severe upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding as a complication of portal hypertension develops in about 30%-40% of cirrhotics. Despite significant improvements in the early diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage, the mortality rate of first variceal hemorrhage remains high (20%-35%). Primary prophylaxis, the focus of this article, is treatment of patients who never had previous variceal bleeding to prevent the first variceal hemorrhage. The potential of preventing first variceal hemorrhage offers the promise of reducing mortality, morbidity, and associated health care costs. This article (1) reviews endoscopic grading of size and stigmata for esophageal and gastric varices, (2) describes data on prevalence and incidence of esophageal and gastric varices from prospective studies, (3) discusses independent risk factors from multivariate analyses of prospective studies for development of first esophageal or gastric variceal hemorrhage and possible stratification of patients based on these risk factors, (4) comments on the potential cost effectiveness of screening all newly diagnosed cirrhotic patients and treating high-risk patients with medical or endoscopic therapies, and (5) recommends further studies of endoscopic screening, stratification, and outcomes in prospective studies of endoscopic therapy. The author's recommendations are to perform endoscopic screening for the following subgroups of cirrhotics: all newly diagnosed cirrhotic patients and all other cirrhotics who are medically stable, willing to be treated prophylactically, and would benefit from medical or endoscopic therapies. Exclude patients who are unlikely to benefit from prophylactic therapies designed to prevent the first variceal hemorrhage, those with short life expectancy, and those with previous UGI hemorrhage (they should have already undergone endoscopy). For low or very low risk cirrhotic patients-those found to have no varices or small varices without stigmata-repeat endoscopy is recommended because screening for progression may be warranted in 2 or more years.

Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is the result of portal hypertension, which is a major complication of liver cirrhosis and carries a high mortality rate. Because of the mortality associated with variceal bleeding, strategies for prevention of the first bleed is important. Risk stratification is important in determining those at risk of bleeding from varices and current data suggest that patients with large varices with red signs, severe underlying liver disease and those who have a hepatic venous pressure gradient of greater than 12 mmHg are at high risk of bleeding. Surveillance for varices in patients with cirrhosis is therefore important. The current review evaluates the role of various treatments in the primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. The current first choice treatment is non-selective beta-blockers; which is cheap, easy to administer, and reduces the risk of first variceal haemorrhage significantly. Combination of beta-blockers and nitrates looks promising but needs further evaluation. Endoscopic variceal band ligation compares favourably with non-selective beta-blockers in preventing the first bleeding episode in cirrhotic patients and may be an alternative for patients who cannot tolerate, or have contraindications to beta-blockers. The role of monitoring the hepatic venous pressure gradient in those being treated with pharmacological agents, the role of newer drugs such as non-selective beta-blockers with intrinsic alpha-adrenergic activity and angiotensin receptor blockers require further evaluation.

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.

Esophageal varices. II. TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt) and surgical therapy

The role of surgery in the prevention and treatment of variceal hemorrhage is reviewed. Types of available surgery, their physiologic basis, and literature supporting their use are discussed in the context of the natural history of variceal hemorrhage. The evolution of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) as a treatment modality for variceal hemorrhage is reviewed. The effects of TIPS on portal and systemic hemodynamics and clinical usefulness in the management of variceal hemorrhage are discussed. A treatment algorithm for the integrated use of the various treatments is provided.

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

BACKGROUND AND METHODS

We compared propranolol therapy and endoscopic ligation for the primary prevention of bleeding from esophageal varices. This prospective, controlled trial included consecutive eligible patients who had large varices (>5 mm in diameter) that were at high risk for bleeding. The patients were assigned to either propranolol therapy, at a dose sufficient to decrease the base-line heart rate by 25 percent, or variceal ligation, to be performed weekly until the varices were obliterated or so reduced in size that it was not possible to continue treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 89 patients, 82 of whom had cirrhosis of the liver, 44 received propranolol and 45 underwent variceal ligation. The mean (+/-SD) duration of follow-up in each group was 14+/-9 and 13+/-10 months, respectively. The mean time required to achieve an adequate reduction in the heart rate was 2.5+/-1.7 days; the mean number of sessions needed to complete variceal ligation was 3.2+/-1.1. After 18 months, the actuarial probability of bleeding was 43 percent in the propranolol group and 15 percent in the ligation group (P=0.04). Twelve patients in the propranolol group and four in the ligation group had bleeding. Three of the four in the ligation group had bleeding before their varices had been obliterated. Nine patients in the ligation group had recurrent varices, a mean of 3.7 months after the initial treatment. Five patients in each group died; bleeding from the varices was the cause of death of four patients in the propranolol group and of three in the ligation group. There were no serious complications of variceal ligation; in the propranolol group, treatment was stopped in two patients because of side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with high-risk esophageal varices, endoscopic ligation of the varices is safe and more effective than propranolol for the primary prevention of variceal bleeding.

Endoscopic variceal ligation for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleed: preliminary report of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Prevention of variceal bleeding, a major cause of morbidity and mortality, is an important goal in the management of patients with portal hypertension (PHT). Although propranolol has been found useful in preventing the first episode of variceal bleeding (primary prophylaxis) in cirrhotic PHT, it has limitations which include side effects, contraindications, non-compliance and failure in some patients. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) has not been used for primary prophylaxis.

METHODS

Thirty cirrhotic patients with PHT, grade III to IV oesophageal varices, hepatic venous pressure gradient > or = 12 mmHg and no prior history of upper gastrointestinal bleeding were randomized to receive propranolol (to reduce their pulse rate by 25% from baseline, n = 15) and EVL (weekly to fortnightly until variceal eradication, n = 15). The two groups were comparable. All the patients in EVL group had variceal eradication during 3.8 +/- 2.2 sessions.

RESULTS

There was no major complication or interval bleeding. During a follow-up period of 17.6 +/- 4.7 months, varices recurred in three, two of which bled (successfully treated by EVL). In contrast, during this period of follow up one patient in the propranolol group had variceal bleeding (P=NS). Side effects of propranolol included symptomatic bradycardia requiring reduction of dose in one of 15 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Although sample size in this study is small, it seems that EVL may be a good option for primary prophylaxis for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhotic PHT; further studies on a larger number of patients and longer follow up are required.

Prevention of first variceal bleed: an appraisal of current therapies

Primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH) is an important issue in the management of patients with portal hypertension. Given the high rates of initial variceal hemorrhage and mortality in patients who have not experienced bleeding from varices, there is an urgent need for some form of primary prophylaxis in all patients with large esophageal varices. The aim of this article is to review the various therapies that have been clinically assessed in randomized controlled trials for their efficacy in prevention of initial EVH. Beta-blockers have been found to be useful in primary prophylaxis of EVH, and the consensus at present is that they should be offered to all patients with portal hypertension who are at high risk for EVH. Nitrates and other newer agents are under evaluation. Surgery is not recommended for primary prophylaxis of EVH. Endoscopic sclerotherapy has not been shown unequivocally to be efficacious, and may even be deleterious, possibly related to an unacceptably high complication rate in this clinical setting. However, it may merit further clinical evaluation in light of recent reports of benefit in certain subgroups of patients with portal hypertension. On the other hand, endoscopic variceal ligation, which has an inherently low complication rate and brings about rapid obliteration of varices, may be a better option for primary prophylaxis of EVH. In the future, preprimary prophylaxis, an attractive concept, may be considered. This would involve intervention with pharmacologic agents even before the development of portal hypertension or esophageal varices.

Pathophysiology and treatment of variceal hemorrhage

Portal hypertension results from increases in portal flow and portal vascular resistance. Factors increasing portal blood flow are predominantly humoral. Resistance to portal flow has a fixed component due to distortion of the vasculature by cirrhotic nodules and a variable component that is related to vasoactive substances. Varices result from an increase in portal pressure. Factors predicting the risk of variceal bleeding include continued alcohol use, poor liver function, large varices, and red wale markings on varices at endoscopy. Octreotide is probably the drug of choice for pharmacologic management of bleeding esophageal varices. Propranolol has an established role in the prevention of variceal hemorrhage, and variceal band ligation may be the preferred endoscopic technique. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts have emerged as an important treatment for patients in whom pharmacologic and endoscopic therapies have failed and are an effective bridge to liver transplantation.

Management of portal hypertension and its complications

In the setting of chronic liver disease, portal hypertension and its complications pose major challenges in management. Once it develops, portal hypertension is the source of potentially devastating sequelae, including life-threatening hemorrhage, infection, renal failure, and encephalopathy. Improved understanding of the pathophysiology of these conditions has led to advances in endoscopic, radiologic, medical, and surgical management. The possibility in selected cases of successful amelioration of portal hypertension and its dreaded complications by liver transplantation highlights the importance of timely and careful management of patients with decompensated cirrhosis.

Bleeding oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

The Danish contribution to evaluation and treatment of bleeding oesophageal varices.

METHODS

Danish papers dealing with portal hypertension and oesophageal varices have been reviewed and set in relation to international publications.

RESULTS

The Danish papers have mainly contributed with controlled clinical trials concerning both primary and secondary prophylaxis. Furthermore, they have dealt with pathophysiologic, clinical and experimental studies concerning portal haemodynamics and the evolution and treatment of variceal bleeding.

CONCLUSION

The Danish studies have been well designed and are frequently cited. Further prospective randomized studies in the new treatment modalities are encouraged.

Current management of oesophageal varices

Patients with chronic liver disease and large varices with endoscopic features which put them at high risk of bleeding, especially if they have a HVPG of more than 12 mmHg, should be treated with beta-blockers at a dose which lowers their pulse by 25%, as prophylaxis against future bleeding. Once a patient bleeds from oesophageal varices, emergency treatment with octreotide should be commenced until endoscopic sclero- or ligation therapy is performed. If these treatments are not readily available, or if bleeding continues in spite of treatment, balloon tamponade is employed to arrest bleeding. In the event of recurrent bleeding, further sclero- or ligation therapy should be attempted, but continued bleeding would dictate surgical therapy or insertion of a TIPS. What operation is performed would depend on the local expertise. In a suitable candidate, liver transplantation would be considered. If bleeding is controlled by sclero- or ligation therapy, chronic sclerotherapy should be continued until the varices are obliterated, and beta-blockers commenced. Regular follow-up should be arranged to encourage abstinence from alcohol if appropriate, and to decide the most opportune time for transplantation if indicated.

Surgical management of portal hypertension

The surgical management of portal hypertension depends on the location of the obstruction. Suprahepatic obstruction is usually optimally treated by a surgical portacaval shunt. In extrahepatic obstruction the treatment should be sclerotherapy. For intrahepatic obstruction in emergency situations, sclerotherapy is the first choice, with portacaval systemic shunts or transjugular intrahepatic portal systemic stent shunt the second option. Liver transplantation in other situations should, if possible, be considered ahead of a portal diversion.

Outcome of portal-systemic shunt surgery for portal hypertension associated with intrahepatic obstruction in patients with agnogenic myeloid metaplasia

Life-threatening portal hypertension (PHN) in patients with chronic myeloproliferative disorders may result from increased portal flow caused by marked splenomegaly or an increased resistance to portal flow from either a large vein thrombosis or an intrahepatic obstruction usually associated with agnogenic myeloid metaplasia (AMM). The former cause is correctable by splenectomy alone, whereas the latter requires portal-systemic shunt surgery. Few data exist regarding the outcome of portal-systemic shunt surgery in patients with AMM and intrahepatic obstruction. During the past 25 years, 13 patients with chronic myeloproliferative disorders underwent portal-systemic shunt surgery at our institution. The cause of PHN was intrahepatic obstruction in ten patients and hepatic vein thrombosis in three. Ten of the thirteen patients had AMM as initial diagnosis. Only one patient had intraoperative complications, and four patients had either sepsis or thrombosis during the postoperative period. Twelve patients survived the postoperative period and had a median postsurgical survival of 3 years (range, 0.25 to 19 years). The long-term complications of the operation were very few and included hepatic encephalopathy (one patient), portal vein thrombosis (one patient), and shunt occlusion (one patient). The procedure was successful in alleviating complications of PHN in all but one patient. Deterioration of hepatic function and subsequent hepatomegaly were unusual. Portal-systemic shunt surgery seems to be a useful option in patients with AMM and life-threatening PHN from intrahepatic obstruction.

Prophylactic treatment of patients with esophageal varices: is it ever indicated?

The prognosis of patients who bleed from esophageal varices is dismal. Prophylactic treatment of the varix or the elevated portal venous pressure offers a possibility of improving the outlook for these patients. However, as only approximately one-third of patients with varices bleed during their lifetime, correct identification of high-risk patients is vital before embarking on prophylaxis. At present, neither European or Japanese selection criteria are perfect in this respect. The documented incidence of initial variceal bleeding varies between 27% and 48%, and most bleeding episodes occur within the first year after varices are diagnosed. Data from six randomized controlled trials comparing prophylactic beta-blockers with placebo demonstrated a decreased incidence of bleeding in propranolol-treated patients, which in large measure may depend on patient compliance and did not significantly affect survival in all but one study. Early randomized studies of prophylactic sclerotherapy have shown significant reductions in both the incidence of bleeding and mortality, but this promise has not been sustained by subsequent trials, and indeed sclerotherapy was detrimental in two studies. The impressive results in highly selected patients treated in Japan by prophylactic surgery are unlikely to be repeated in a Western setting, involving patient populations that consist predominantly of alcoholic cirrhotics. At present prophylaxis with beta-blockade seems to offer the best therapeutic option, but the future may lie in the development of new interventional techniques such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunting (TIPS) or variceal banding, and ultimately with hepatic transplantation.