Comparision between portosystemic shunts and endoscopic therapy for prevention of variceal re-bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Evidence for preventing EVRB in cirrhotic patients: A systematic review

Systematic strategies for preventing and treating esophagogastric variceal rebleeding (EVRB) are currently inadequate. This systematic review aimed to update this critical gap by searching contemporary studies from major guideline websites, databases, and professional associations focused on EVRB prevention in cirrhosis patients. Key findings highlight evaluation methods, risk management, preventive measures, health education, and follow-up strategies. Notably, a hepatic venous pressure gradient exceeding 18 mmHg is identified as a reliable predictor of gastroesophageal varices (GOV) rebleeding. Effective management of primary diseases is crucial, with methods including antiviral and anti-fibrotic therapies, alcohol avoidance, vaccination, and careful medication management. The combination of nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is established as the gold standard for secondary EVRB prevention. For patients experiencing recurrent bleeding despite NSBBs and EVL, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) therapy is recommended. Surgical options, such as surgical shunt and devascularization, are advised for those unsuitable for endoscopic therapy or TIPS, particularly in Child-Pugh A and B patients unresponsive to treatment. Additionally, traditional Chinese medicine options, such as Fufang Biejia Ruangan Tablets, Fuzheng Huayu Capsules, and Anluo Huaxian Pills, have shown promise in improving hepatic fibrosis and GOV in cirrhotic patients. This review offers a comprehensive overview of current prevention and treatment strategies for EVRB, providing valuable insights for clinicians and healthcare professionals.

TIPS and hepatic encephalopathy in patients with cirrhosis

Despite a better understanding in its prognosis and pathogenesis, hepatic encephalopathy (HE) remains one of the major complications of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (TIPS) with a prevalence ranging from 35 to 50%. Its epidemiology differs according to the indication for TIPS (salvage/rescue TIPS, preemptive (pTIPS) or elective TIPS). In salvage/rescue TIPS, the prognosis is linked to that of bleeding, and HE should not be a contraindication to TIPS, especially as bleeding is a common precipitating factor of HE. In pTIPS, i.e. TIPS performed within the 72 h after stabilization of acute variceal bleeding in high-risk patients, the risk rebleeding and HE is reduced, when compared to endoscopic and drugs treatment. As a consequence, the Baveno VII recommendations state that HE at admission should not be considered as a contraindication to pTIPS placement. In elective situations, such as refractory (intractable ascites (intolerance to diuretics) or resistant ascites (i.e. despite optimal diuretic treatment (spironolactone 400 mg/d and Furosemide 160 mg/d combined with low-salt treatment (< 5.2 g/day) or recurrent ascites (the need for at least 3 paracenteses per year) and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, it is recommended to systematically look for risk factors for HE, and chronic or refractory HE remain not recommended to TIPS in most centers. Chronic HE involves persistent neurological symptoms with fluctuating acute episodes. Recurrent HE refers to repeated episodes occurring within 6 months, while refractory HE is resistant to standard treatments, often requiring more aggressive management (Vilstrup et al. 2014). A careful selection of patients is mandatory before elective TIPS decision. Risk factors must be identified and corrected if possible before any TIPS decision is made. Management of HE after TIPS is based on identification of precipitating factors, curative treatment with lactulose as first-line therapy and rifaximin as second-line therapy, and nutritional management. In elective TIPS, prophylactic administration of rifaximin is recommended in order to decrease the risk of further HE development in selected patients (not in everyone, at least according to Baveno VII). Liver transplantation (LT) should be discussed with a multidisciplinary team as an alternative option to TIPS in case of high-risk of post-TIPS HE, and in case of refractory HE after TIPS.

French guidelines on TIPS: Indications and modalities

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has become essential in the treatment or prevention of portal hypertension-related complications. In the early 1990s, the primary indication was refractory bleeding. It is now proposed for the treatment of ascites for the prevention of bleeding and in patients with vascular diseases of the liver. Thus, there are a growing number of patients being treated with TIPS all over the world. The broadening of indications, the involvement of multiple stakeholders, the need for an accurate selection, the positioning in relation to transplantation and the lack of standardization in pre-therapeutic assessment, in the procedure itself and in the follow-up have led the board of the French Association for the Study of the Liver to establish recommendations.

Combined Use of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt and Transarterial Chemoembolization in the Treatment of Esophageal and Gastric Variceal Bleeding: A Retrospective Study of 80 Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Portal Hypertension

Background

The main cause of death in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal hypertension is esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding caused by severe portal hypertension; therefore, the treatment of portal hypertension is particularly important to prolong the survival of patients. The therapeutic efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for HCC with esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding has been rarely reported. The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical efficacy of TIPS combined with TACE in the treatment of HCC with esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding.

Material/Methods

A total of 80 patients with HCC with esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding from July 2015 to November 2019 were retrospectively investigated. Clinical outcomes, biochemical indexes, and complications were compared between TIPS plus TACE and endoscopy plus TACE treatments.

Results

Gastrointestinal rebleeding and adverse reactions (P<0.05) after TIPS combined with TACE were lower than that after endoscopy combined with TACE treatment. Furthermore, TIPS plus TACE had superior clinical outcomes than endoscopy plus TACE, which was associated with promising progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and disease control rate, and improved liver function.

Conclusions

TIPS combined with TACE was better than endoscopy combined with TACE in the treatment of patients with HCC and esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding. TIPS combined with TACE had a better therapeutic effect on improving liver function and prolonging patient survival time.

A New Scoring System for Predicting In-hospital Death in Patients Having Liver Cirrhosis With Esophageal Varices

Introduction: Liver cirrhosis is caused by the development of various acute and chronic liver diseases. Esophageal varices is a common and serious complication of liver cirrhosis during decompensation. Despite the development of various treatments, the prognosis for liver cirrhosis with esophageal varices (LCEV) remains poor. We aimed to establish and validate a nomogram for predicting in-hospital death in LCEV patients.

Methods: Data on LCEV patients were extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III and IV (MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV) database. The patients from MIMIC-III were randomly divided into training and validation cohorts. Training cohort was used for establishing the model, validation and MIMIC-IV cohorts were used for validation. The independent prognostic factors for LCEV patients were determined using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method and forward stepwise logistic regression. We then constructed a nomogram to predict the in-hospital death of LCEV patients. Multiple indicators were used to validate the nomogram, including the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration curve, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), net reclassification index (NRI), and decision curve analysis (DCA).

Results: Nine independent prognostic factors were identified by using LASSO and stepwise regressions: age, Elixhauser score, anion gap, sodium, albumin, bilirubin, international normalized ratio, vasopressor use, and bleeding. The nomogram was then constructed and validated. The AUC value of the nomogram was 0.867 (95% CI = 0.832–0.904) in the training cohort, 0.846 (95% CI = 0.790–0.896) in the validation cohort and 0.840 (95% CI = 0.807–0.872) in the MIMIC-IV cohort. High AUC values indicated the good discriminative ability of the nomogram, while the calibration curves and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test results demonstrated that the nomogram was well-calibrated. Improvements in NRI and IDI values suggested that our nomogram was superior to MELD-Na, CAGIB, and OASIS scoring system. DCA curves indicated that the nomogram had good value in clinical applications.

Conclusion: We have established the first prognostic nomogram for predicting the in-hospital death of LCEV patients. The nomogram is easy to use, performs well, and can be used to guide clinical practice, but further external prospective validation is still required.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts in portal vein thrombosis: A review

The presence of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) has previously been considered a contraindication to the insertion of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPSS). However, patients with PVT may have portal hypertension complications and may thus benefit from TIPSS to reduce portal venous pressure. There is an increasing body of literature that discusses the techniques and outcomes of TIPSS in PVT. This review summarizes the techniques, indications and outcomes of TIPSS in PVT in published case reports, case series and comparative trials, especially regarding the reduction in portal hypertensive complications such as variceal bleeding. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using MEDLINE and PubMed databases. Manuscripts published in English between 1 January 1990 and 1 March 2021 were used. Abstracts were screened and data from potentially relevant articles analyzed. TIPSS in PVT has been reported with high levels of technical success, short-term portal vein recanalization and long-term PV patency and TIPSS patency outcomes. Several comparative studies, including randomized controlled trials, have shown favorable outcomes of TIPSS compared with non-TIPSS treatment of PVT complications. Outcomes of TIPSS with PVT appear similar to those in TIPSS without PVT. However, TIPSS may be more technically difficult in the presence of PVT, and such procedures should be performed in expert high-volume centers to mitigate the risk of procedural complications. The presence of PVT should no longer be considered a contraindication to TIPSS. TIPSS for PVT has been acknowledged as a therapeutic strategy in recent international guidelines, although further studies are needed before recommendations can be strengthened. KEY POINTS: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is no longer a contraindication to the insertion of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPSS) TIPSS often leads to the spontaneous dissolution of PVT, but can be combined with mechanical or pharmacological thrombectomy TIPSS reduces portal hypertensive complications of PVT, such as variceal bleeding, and can also facilitate liver transplantation where PVT may otherwise interfere with vascular anastomoses Studies have shown favorable long-term outcomes of TIPSS compared with TIPSS without PVT; as well as compared with non-TIPSS treatment of PVT complications TIPSS in PVT should be performed in high-volume specialist centers due to technical difficulties.

Current Indications and Long-Term Outcomes of Surgical Portosystemic Shunts in Adults

BACKGROUND

Surgical portosystemic shunts are rare. We reviewed indications, operative details, and outcomes of patients undergoing surgical portosystemic shunt procedures.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed clinical data of consecutive patients between 1997 and 2018 from a single institution. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between two groups: patients with portomesenteric venous thrombosis (PMVT) vs those with cirrhosis. Endpoints included 30-day mortality, shunt-related complications, patency, and survival.

RESULTS

There were 99 patients, 45 male and 54 female, with a mean age of 46 ± 18 years, enrolled in the study. There were 63 patients (63%) with PMVT and 36 patients (36%) with cirrhosis. Both groups had similar demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, and aneurysm extent, except for more diabetes among those with cirrhosis (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in procedural metrics and intra-procedure complications between groups, except that patients with PMVT underwent more non-selective shunts than those with cirrhosis (63% vs. 30%, p < 0.001). There were two 30-day deaths (2%), with no difference in mortality and MAEs between groups. On univariate analysis, cholangiopathy and PMVT were associated with graft thrombosis (HR = 9.22, 95% CI 1.22-70.27) while race, smoking, cardiac comorbidity, type of operative shunt, configuration of the shunt, and use of conduit were not (p > 0.05). Patients with PMVT had significantly lower 1-, 5-, and 10-year primary (77%, 71%, and 71% vs. 97%, p = 0.009) and secondary patency (88%, 76%, and 72% vs. 96%, p = 0.027) compared with those with cirrhosis. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 94%, 84%, and 61% for patients with PMVT compared with 88%, 58%, and 26% for those with cirrhosis (non-adjusted HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19-0.84, p = 0.01, age-adjusted HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24-1.09, p = 0.08). The survival of patients with PMVT without liver disease trended higher than those with liver disease; however, when adjusted for age, the survival gap narrowed, and the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.19), survival being lowest for those with PMVT and liver disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical portosystemic shunts are safe and effective for symptom relief in selected patients with portal hypertension. The odds of graft thrombosis is 9 times higher in patients with PMVT. Overall survival is similar in patients with PMVT or cirrhosis.

Secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and a previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.

Portosystemic shunts versus endoscopic intervention with or without medical treatment for prevention of rebleeding in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

People with liver cirrhosis who have had one episode of variceal bleeding are at risk for repeated episodes of bleeding. Endoscopic intervention and portosystemic shunts are used to prevent further bleeding, but there is no consensus as to which approach is preferable.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of shunts (surgical shunts (total shunt (TS), distal splenorenal shunt (DSRS), or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)) versus endoscopic intervention (endoscopic sclerotherapy or banding, or both) with or without medical treatment (non-selective beta blockers or nitrates, or both) for prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with liver cirrhosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CHBG Controlled Trials Register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS (Bireme); Science Citation Index - Expanded (Web of Science); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science); as well as conference proceedings and the references of trials identified until 22 June 2020. We contacted study investigators and industry researchers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing shunts versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis who had recovered from a variceal haemorrhage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. When possible, we collected data to allow intention-to-treat analysis. For each outcome, we estimated a meta-analysed estimate of treatment effect across trials (risk ratio for binary outcomes). We used random-effects model meta-analysis as our main analysis and as a means of presenting results. We reported differences in means for continuous outcomes without a meta-analytic estimate due to high variability in their assessment among all trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 27 randomised trials with 1828 participants. Three trials assessed TSs, five assessed DSRSs, and 19 trials assessed TIPSs. The endoscopic intervention was sclerotherapy in 16 trials, band ligation in eight trials, and a combination of band ligation and either sclerotherapy or glue injection in three trials. In eight trials, endoscopy was combined with beta blockers (in one trial plus isosorbide mononitrate). We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all the outcome review results as very low (i.e. the true effects of the results are likely to be substantially different from the results of estimated effects). The very low evidence grading is due to the overall high risk of bias for all trials, and to imprecision and publication bias for some outcomes. Therefore, we are very uncertain whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment have effects on all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.13; 1828 participants; 27 trials), on rebleeding (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50; 1769 participants; 26 trials), on mortality due to rebleeding (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; 1779 participants; 26 trials), and on occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy, both acute (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.92; 1649 participants; 24 trials) and chronic (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.55; 956 participants; 13 trials). No data were available regarding health-related quality of life. Analysing each modality of portosystemic shunts individually (i.e. TS, DSRS, and TIPS) versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment, we are very uncertain if each type of shunt has effect on all-cause mortality: TS, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.13; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.33; 352 participants; 4 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.31; 1312 participants; 19 trial; on rebleeding: TS, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.56; 127 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.65; 330 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.55; 1312 participants; 19 trials; on mortality due to rebleeding: TS, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.74; 352 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.04; 1263 participants; 18 trials; on acute hepatic encephalopathy: TS, RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.92; 115 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.08; 287 participants; 4 trials, TIPS, RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.99; 1247 participants; 18 trials; and chronic hepatic encephalopathy: TS, Fisher's exact test P = 0.11; 69 participants; 1 trial; DSRS, RR 4.87, 95% CI 1.46 to 16.23; 170 participants; 2 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.93 to 3.80; 717 participants; 10 trials. The proportion of participants with shunt occlusion or dysfunction was overall 37% (95% CI 33% to 40%). It was 3% (95% CI 0.8% to 10%) following TS, 7% (95% CI 3% to 13%) following DSRS, and 47.1% (95% CI 43% to 51%) following TIPS. Shunt dysfunction in trials utilising polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents was 17% (95% CI 11% to 24%). Length of inpatient hospital stay and cost were not comparable across trials. Funding was unclear in 16 trials; 11 trials were funded by government, local hospitals, or universities.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis and previous hypertensive portal bleeding have little or no effect on all-cause mortality is very uncertain. Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts may reduce bleeding and mortality due to bleeding while increasing hepatic encephalopathy is also very uncertain. We need properly conducted trials to assess effects of these interventions not only on assessed outcomes, but also on quality of life, costs, and length of hospital stay.

Treatment for ascites in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 20% of people with cirrhosis develop ascites. Several different treatments are available; including, among others, paracentesis plus fluid replacement, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts, aldosterone antagonists, and loop diuretics. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their relative efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for ascites in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for ascites according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until May 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and ascites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and ascites. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio, rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 49 randomised clinical trials (3521 participants) in the review. Forty-two trials (2870 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies, without other features of decompensation, having mainly grade 3 (severe), recurrent, or refractory ascites. The follow-up in the trials ranged from 0.1 to 84 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of evidence was low or very low. Approximately 36.8% of participants who received paracentesis plus fluid replacement (reference group, the current standard treatment) died within 11 months. There was no evidence of differences in mortality, adverse events, or liver transplantation in people receiving different interventions compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement (very low-certainty evidence). Resolution of ascites at maximal follow-up was higher with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (HR 9.44; 95% CrI 1.93 to 62.68) and adding aldosterone antagonists to paracentesis plus fluid replacement (HR 30.63; 95% CrI 5.06 to 692.98) compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement (very low-certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists plus loop diuretics had a higher rate of other decompensation events such as hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, and variceal bleeding compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement (rate ratio 2.04; 95% CrI 1.37 to 3.10) (very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials using paracentesis plus fluid replacement reported health-related quality of life or symptomatic recovery from ascites.

FUNDING

the source of funding for four trials were industries which would benefit from the results of the study; 24 trials received no additional funding or were funded by neutral organisations; and the source of funding for the remaining 21 trials was unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low-certainty evidence, there is considerable uncertainty about whether interventions for ascites in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis decrease mortality, adverse events, or liver transplantation compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis and ascites. Based on very low-certainty evidence, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and adding aldosterone antagonists to paracentesis plus fluid replacement may increase the resolution of ascites compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement. Based on very low-certainty evidence, aldosterone antagonists plus loop diuretics may increase the decompensation rate compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement.