Variceal band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prevention of variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis

Non-selective beta-blockers in patients with ascites: The complex interplay among the liver, kidney and heart

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are the cornerstone of the primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients. They additionally prevent ascites development and death in compensated patients with clinically significant portal hypertension. After ascites onset, NSBBs remain beneficial for preventing further decompensations. However, as the cirrhosis progresses, the inflammation increases, systemic vasodilatation worsens, ascites turns refractory and cardiodynamic equilibrium becomes extremely fragile. In this scenario, NSBBs can critically impair the cardiac reserve and facilitate a haemodynamic breakdown, imperilling renal perfusion. Consequently, NSBB treatment should be carefully monitored or even avoided in such patients, and other options for portal hypertension management should be considered. In the present review, we explore the effects of NSBBs in patients with ascites and discuss the complex interplay among their hepatic, systemic and renal haemodynamic effects in this scenario.

Beta-blockers in cirrhosis: Evidence-based indications and limitations

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are the mainstay of treatment for portal hypertension in the setting of liver cirrhosis. Randomised controlled trials demonstrated their efficacy in preventing initial variceal bleeding and subsequent rebleeding. Recent evidence indicates that NSBBs could prevent liver decompensation in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Despite solid data favouring NSBB use in cirrhosis, some studies have highlighted relevant safety issues in patients with end-stage liver disease, particularly with refractory ascites and infection. This review summarises the evidence supporting current recommendations and restrictions of NSBB use in patients with cirrhosis.

Band ligation versus no intervention for primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

The presence of oesophageal varices is associated with the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopic variceal ligation is used to prevent this occurrence but the ligation procedure may be associated with complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of band ligation versus no intervention for primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 9 February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing band ligation verus no intervention regardless of publication status, blinding, or language in the analyses of benefits and harms, and observational studies in the assessment of harms. Included participants had cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no previous history of variceal bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors extracted data independently. The primary outcome measures were all-cause mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and I² values as a marker of heterogeneity. In addition, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTTB) for the primary outcomes . We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains; determined the certainty of the evidence using GRADE; and conducted sensitivity analyses including Trial Sequential Analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised clinical trials involving 637 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One of the trials included an additional small number of participants (< 10% of the total) with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension/portal vein block. We classified one trial as at low risk of bias for the outcome, mortality and high risk of bias for the remaining outcomes; the five remaining trials were at high risk of bias for all outcomes. We downgraded the evidence to moderate certainty due to the bias risk. We gathered data on all primary outcomes from all trials. Seventy-one of 320 participants allocated to band ligation compared to 129 of 317 participants allocated to no intervention died (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70; I² = 0%; NNTTB = 6 persons). In addition, band ligation was associated with reduced risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 61%; NNTTB = 5 persons), serious adverse events (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 44%; NNTTB = 4 persons), and variceal bleeding (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.69; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 56%; NNTTB = 5 persons). The non-serious adverse events reported in association with band ligation included oesophageal ulceration, dysphagia, odynophagia, retrosternal and throat pain, heartburn, and fever, and in the one trial involving participants with either small or large varices, the incidence of non-serious side effects in the banding group was much higher in those with small varices, namely ulcers: small versus large varices 30.5% versus 8.7%; heartburn 39.2% versus 17.4%. No trials reported on health-related quality of life.Two trials did not receive support from pharmaceutical companies; the remaining four trials did not provide information on this issue.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found moderate-certainty evidence that, in patients with cirrhosis, band ligation of oesophageal varices reduces mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, variceal bleeding, and serious adverse events compared to no intervention. It is unlikely that further trials of band ligation versus no intervention would be considered ethical.

Beta adrenergic blockade and decompensated cirrhosis

Non-selective betablockers (NSBBs) remain the cornerstone of medical treatment of portal hypertension. The evidence for their efficacy to prevent variceal bleeding is derived from prospective trials, which largely excluded patients with refractory ascites and renal failure. In parallel to the increasing knowledge on portal hypertension-induced changes in systemic hemodynamics, cardiac function, and renal perfusion, emerging studies have raised concerns about harmful effects of NSBBs. Clinicians are facing an ongoing controversy on the use of NSBBs in patients with advanced cirrhosis. On the one hand, NSBBs are effective in preventing variceal bleeding and might also have beneficial non-hemodynamic effects, however, they also potentially induce hypotension and limit the cardiac reserve. An individualized NSBB regimen tailored to the specific pathophysiological stage of cirrhosis might optimize patient management at this point. This article aims to give practical recommendations on the use of NSBBs in patients with decompensated cirrhosis.

Addition of simvastatin to carvedilol non responders: A new pharmacological therapy for treatment of portal hypertension

AIM

To determine whether addition of simvastatin could be an important pharmacological rescue therapy for carvedilol non-responders.

METHODS

One hundred and two consecutive patients of cirrhosis of liver with significant portal hypertension were included. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) was measured at the base line and after proper optimization of dose; chronic response was assessed at 3 mo. Carvedilol non-responders were given simvastatin 20 mg per day (increased to 40 mg per day at day 15). Carvedilol plus simvastatin was continued for 1 mo and hemodynamic response was again measured at 1 mo.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients with mean age of 58.3 ± 6.6 years were included. Mean baseline HVPG was 16.75 ± 2.12 mmHg and after optimization of dose and reassessment of HVPG at 3 mo, mean reduction of HVPG from baseline was 5.5 ± 1.7 mmHg and 2.8 ± 1.6 mmHg among responders and non-responders respectively (P < 0.001). Addition of simvastatin to carvedilol non-responders resulted in significant response in 16 patients (42.1%) and thus overall response with carvedilol and carvedilol plus simvastatin was seen in 78 patients (80%). Two patients were removed in chronic protocol study with carvedilol and three patients were removed in carvedilol plus simvastatin study due to side effects.

CONCLUSION

Addition of simvastatin to carvedilol non-responders may prove to be an excellent rescue therapy in patients with portal hypertension.

Carvedilol versus propranolol effect on hepatic venous pressure gradient at 1 month in patients with index variceal bleed: RCT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) plus beta blocker is the mainstay treatment after index bleed to prevent rebleed. Primary objective of this study was to compare EVL plus propranolol versus EVL plus carvedilol on reduction of HVPG after 1 month of therapy.

METHODS

Patients of cirrhosis presenting with index esophageal variceal bleed received standard treatment (Somatostatin therapy f/b EVL) following which HVPG was measured and patients were randomized to propranolol or carvedilol group if HVPG was >12 mmHg. Standard endotherapy protocol was continued in both groups. HVPG was again measured at 1 month of treatment.

RESULTS

Out of 129 patients of index esophageal variceal bleed, 59 patients were eligible and randomized into carvedilol (n = 30) and propranolol (n = 29). At 1 month of treatment, decrease in heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and HVPG was significant within each group (p = 0.001). Percentage decrease in MAP was significantly more in carvedilol group as compared to propranolol group (p = 0.04). Number of HVPG responders (HVPG decrease >20 % or below 12 mmHg) was significantly more in carvedilol group (22/29) as compared to propranolol group (14/28), p = 0.04.

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol is more effective in reducing portal pressure in patients with cirrhosis with esophageal bleed. Though a larger study is required to substantiate this, the results in this study are promising for carvedilol. Clinical trials online government registry (CTRI/2013/10/004119). Trial registration number CTRI/2013/10/004119.

After proper optimization of carvedilol dose, do different child classes of liver disease differ in terms of dose tolerance and response on a chronic basis?

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Literature regarding safe doses of carvedilol is limited, and safe doses across different Child classes of chronic liver disease are not clear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 102 consecutive cirrhotic patients with significant portal hypertension were included in this study. Hepatic venous pressure gradient was measured at baseline and 3 months after dose optimization.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients (63 males, 39 females) with a mean age of 58.3 ± 6.6 years were included. Among these patients, 42.2% had Child Class A, 31.9% had Class B, and 26.6% had Child Class C liver disease. The mean baseline hepatic venous pressure gradient was 16.75 ± 2.12 mmHg, and after dose optimization and reassessment of hepatic venous pressure gradient at 3 months, the mean reduction in the hepatic venous pressure gradient was 5.5 ± 1.7 mmHg and 2.8 ± 1.6 mmHg among responders and nonresponders respectively. The mean dose of carvedilol was higher in nonresponders (19.2 ± 5.7 mg) than responders (18.75 ± 5.1 mg). However, this difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The univariate analysis determined that the absence of adverse events, the absence of ascites, and low baseline cardiac output were significantly associated with chronic response, whereas, the etiology, Child class, variceal size (large vs small), and gender were not. On multivariate analysis, the absence of any adverse event was determined to be an independent predictor of chronic response (OR 11.3, 95% CI; 1.9-67.8).

CONCLUSION

The proper optimization of the dose of carvedilol, when administered chronically, may enable carvedilol treatment to achieve a greater response with minimum side effects among different Child classes of liver disease.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Primary prophylaxis of bleeding from esophageal varices in cirrhosis

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

Endoscopic management of esophageal varices

The rupture of gastric varices results in variceal hemorrhage, which is one the most lethal complications of cirrhosis. Endoscopic therapies for varices aim to reduce variceal wall tension by obliteration of the varix. The two principal methods available for esophageal varices are endoscopic sclerotherapy (EST) and band ligation (EBL). The advantages of EST are that it is cheap and easy to use, and the injection catheter fits through the working channel of a diagnostic gastroscope. Endoscopic variceal ligation obliterates varices by causing mechanical strangulation with rubber bands. The following review aims to describe the utility of EBL and EST in different situations, such as acute bleeding, primary and secondary prophylaxis

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

AIM

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Carvedilol in the treatment of portal hypertension

Variceal bleeding is a major event in the natural history of end-stage liver disease with a subsequent high mortality rate. Non-selective β-blockers are currently the drugs of choice for preventing first variceal bleeding. Endoscopic rubber band ligation of high risk varices features as a first line option if cirrhotic patients cannot tolerate β-blockers. Despite adequate β-blockade, some patients may still present with variceal bleeding. The effect of carvedilol, a non-selective β and α-1 receptor-blocker, on lowering portal pressure has been investigated in several clinical trials and found to be superior to propranolol in both acute and chronic hemodynamic studies. Recently, carvedilol has also been compared with band ligation for primary prophylaxis against variceal bleeding with equivalent results to band ligation. Patient tolerance to carvedilol in advanced liver disease remains a source of concern. This review examines the place of carvedilol as an alternative to the currently recommended pharmacological therapy in prophylaxis against variceal bleeding.

The role of carvedilol in the management of portal hypertension

Carvedilol is a potent noncardioselective beta-blocker, with weak vasodilating properties because of alpha 1 blockade. A reduction in both intrahepatic and portocollateral resistance contribute to enhanced effects on portal pressure. There are 10 published hemodynamic studies involving 168 patients investigating the role of carvedilol in portal hypertension. A reduction in the hepatic venous pressure gradient of up to 43% (range 10-43%) has been reported, particularly after chronic administration. However, tolerability at doses greater than 12.5 mg/day was comprised because of a fall in mean arterial pressure (MAP), particularly in ascitic patients. Carvedilol was more effective than propranolol in reducing hepatic venous pressure gradient in two of three studies, albeit with a greater decrease in MAP. One study showed deterioration of pre-existing ascites with carvedilol. The addition of nitrates to propranolol was less effective than carvedilol monotherapy in another study. A large multicentre, randomized controlled trial comparing carvedilol with variceal band ligation for the prevention of variceal bleeding has been published. Carvedilol resulted in fewer episodes of bleeding, although there was no difference in survival. Carvedilol was well tolerated. Carvedilol is a promising agent, and seems to be more effective than propranolol in hemodynamic studies. The efficacy in primary prevention of variceal bleeding suggests that carvedilol has a role in the management of clinically significant portal hypertension.

Compliance with practice guidelines and risk of a first esophageal variceal hemorrhage in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH) is a serious complication of cirrhosis, with 20% mortality per episode. The 2007 American Association for the Study of Liver Disease and American College of Gastroenterology practice guidelines regarding esophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis recommend screening and intervention to prevent EVH. We assessed practice guideline compliance and its impact on the rate of first EVH.

METHODS

An institutional review board-approved retrospective chart review was conducted on a random sample of adult patients newly evaluated for cirrhosis at the Cleveland Clinic from 2003 to 2006 (n = 179). Exclusion criteria were a previous diagnosis of esophageal varices or EVH and/or treatment with beta-adrenergic antagonists. Patients were followed for 23 months (range, 9-38 months). Conformity with practice guidelines and subsequent bleeding rates were determined. Observed bleeding rates were compared to the North Italian Endoscopy Club (NIEC) model.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 94% had a screening endoscopy, 80% within 6 months of the initial visit. Varices were present in 50% of the patients; 68% of all patients screened and 91% with large varices received a practice guideline-recommended treatment. Twelve patients (7%) had an episode of EVH; 82% of subjects without bleeding had their screening endoscopy within 6 months versus 50% of those with bleeding (P = .016). Actuarial likelihood of bleeding at 2 years was 13% versus 27% predicted by the NIEC model (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Compliance with practice guideline recommendations is associated with reduction in first EVH in the first 2 years.

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.

PillCam ESO versus esophagogastroduodenoscopy in esophageal variceal screening: A decision analysis

OBJECTIVES

PillCam ESO has been evaluated as a possible strategy to screen patients with cirrhosis for esophageal varices, but current guidelines recommend patients undergo screening with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), as it is currently the gold standard. Although recent data have suggested that PillCam ESO may be an acceptable alternative for screening, there is limited data on its cost-effectiveness compared with other screening modalities. This study was performed to compare the cost-effectiveness of PillCam ESO versus EGD for esophageal variceal screening.

METHODS

Markov models were constructed to compare 2 screening strategies: PillCam ESO versus EGD. In each arm, patients were followed for a time horizon of 15 years in 1-year transition intervals. All variables, transition probabilities, and costs were derived from the medical literature, and sensitivity analyses were performed on the different variables in the model.

RESULTS

Base-case analysis shows that PillCam ESO is associated with an average expected cost of $22,589 and an average expected effectiveness measure of 12.81 life-years. EGD is associated with an average expected cost of $23,083 and an average expected effectiveness measure of 12.67 life-years. PillCam ESO was found to dominate EGD as a screening strategy for patients with cirrhosis. Sensitivity analyses found several variables within the model to have influential effects on the results.

CONCLUSIONS

PillCam ESO is the dominant strategy for screening patients with cirrhosis for esophageal varices. However, based on a small difference in costs and effectiveness between each strategy, the results would suggest that PillCam ESO and EGD are essentially equivalent strategies.

Randomized controlled trial of carvedilol versus variceal band ligation for the prevention of the first variceal bleed

Current therapy for preventing the first variceal bleed includes beta-blocker and variceal band ligation (VBL). VBL has lower bleeding rates, with no differences in survival, whereas beta-blocker therapy can be limited by side effects. Carvedilol, a non-cardioselective vasodilating beta-blocker, is more effective in reducing portal pressure than propranolol; however, there have been no clinical studies assessing the efficacy of carvedilol in primary prophylaxis. The goal of this study was to compare carvedilol and VBL for the prevention of the first variceal bleed in a randomized controlled multicenter trial. One hundred fifty-two cirrhotic patients from five different centers with grade II or larger esophageal varices were randomized to either carvedilol 12.5 mg once daily or VBL performed every 2 weeks until eradication using a multibander device. Seventy-seven patients were randomized to carvedilol and 75 to VBL. Baseline characteristics did not differ between the groups (alcoholic liver disease, 73%; median Child-Pugh score, 8; median age, 54 years; median follow-up, 20 months). On intention-to-treat analysis, carvedilol had lower rates of the first variceal bleed (10% versus 23%; relative hazard 0.41; 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.96 [P = 0.04]), with no significant differences in overall mortality (35% versus 37%, P = 0.71), and bleeding-related mortality (3% versus 1%, P = 0.26). Six patients in the VBL group bled as a result of banding ulcers. Per-protocol analysis revealed no significant differences in the outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol is effective in preventing the first variceal bleed. Carvedilol is an option for primary prophylaxis in patients with high-risk esophageal varices.

Management of Cirrhosis and Associated Complications

Liver cirrhosis is the encapsulation or replacement of injured tissue by collagen, resulting in end-stage liver disease and portal hypertension. The consequences of cirrhosis are impaired hepatocyte function, increase intrahepatic circulatory resistance, portal hypertension, and the development of hepatocellular carcinoma. Complications include encephalopathy, coagulopathy, varices, ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, epatorenal syndrome, and hepatopulmonary syndrome. Managing patients with acute or chronic liver failure is challenging, and liver failure may have profound effects on other organ systems. Most therapies are directed at managing the complications and bridging patients to liver transplantation. The clinician must be aware of the pathologic presentations and the appropriate management, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies, goals and end points of therapy, and monitoring of therapy. This review focuses on the management of the complications directly associated with liver dysfunction (encephalopathy and coagulopathy) and portal hypertension (varices, ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatorenal syndrome, hepatopulmonary syndrome).

Portal hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Portal hypertension is the most common complication of cirrhosis accounting for significant morbidity and mortality mainly because of variceal hemorrhage, ascites, bacterial infections, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatorenal syndrome. Advances in the diagnosis and management of portal hypertension over the last year are reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

The measurement of the hepatic venous pressure gradient provides important prognostic information in patients with portal hypertension. Noninvasive testing with transient elastography, capsule endoscopy, and computed tomography scanning for the diagnosis of esophageal varices is promising but more information is needed. Easily obtainable clinical data have been identified in patients with acute variceal bleeding that provides important information in determining initial response to therapy and prognosis. New therapies for patients with dilutional hyponatremia with vasopressin antagonists are promising and may improve the management of this condition. Terlipressin is the best medical therapy currently available for the management of hepatorenal syndrome as confirmed in recent studies. Patients with advanced liver disease benefit from the long-term administration of norfloxacin as it prevents the development of hepatorenal syndrome and improves survival.

SUMMARY

The ongoing advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension will improve the high morbidity and mortality of the complications of cirrhosis

Novel developments in esophageal vascular disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Esophageal variceal bleeding is a life-threatening complication of liver cirrhosis. The aim of this review is to discuss the most important studies published in 2007 concerning diagnosis of esophageal varices, primary and secondary prophylaxis and treatment of variceal bleeding.

RECENT FINDINGS

The specific areas reviewed are the noninvasive or minimally invasive diagnosis of oesophageal varices, prevention of the formation of varices and their progression from small to large, prevention of the first variceal hemorrhage, treatment of acute bleeding episodes and prevention of rebleeding, assessment of costs related to prophylaxis and treatment of variceal bleeding. Multidetector computed tomographic esophagography was found to identify the presence and grade the size of esophageal varices. Portal vein thrombosis was found to be an independent predictor of the aggravation of esophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. The role of hepatic vein pressure gradient measurement in the prediction of decompensation of cirrhosis has been elucidated.

SUMMARY

Relevant studies are reviewed on the diagnosis and the natural history of esophageal varices, prevention of their formation and growth, prevention of the first variceal bleed, use of hepatic vein pressure gradient to predict the evolution of portal hypertension and to estimate the response to pharmacological treatment, prediction of bleeding, treatment of variceal bleeding and prevention of rebleeding, and cost strategies.