Endoscopic treatment of esophageal varices in advanced liver disease patients: band ligation versus cyanoacrylate injection

Variceal Bleeding: Beyond Banding

Despite advances in the management of complications of portal hypertension, variceal bleeding continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. While endoscopic variceal band ligation remains first line therapy for treating bleeding and high-risk non-bleeding esophageal varices, alternate therapies have been explored, particularly in cases of refractory bleeding. The therapies being explored include stent placement, hemostatic powder use, over-the-scope clips and others. For gastric variceal bleeding, endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapies have recently emerged as promising interventions for hemostasis. The aim of this article is to highlight these alternative therapies and their potential role in the management of gastric and esophageal variceal bleeding.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiologic Management of Portal Hypertension

Cirrhosis is a heterogeneous disease that cannot be studied as a single entity and is classified in two main prognostic stages: compensated and decompensated cirrhosis. Portal hypertension, characterized by a pathological increase of the portal pressure and by the formation of portal-systemic collaterals that bypass the liver, is the initial and main consequence of cirrhosis and is responsible for the majority of its complications. A myriad of treatment options exists for appropriately managing the most common complications of portal hypertension, including acute variceal bleeding and refractory ascites. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding in people with oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years. There are several different treatments to prevent bleeding, including: beta-blockers, endoscopic sclerotherapy, and variceal band ligation. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers to December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previous bleeding from oesophageal varices and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation or previously received prophylactic treatment for oesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 randomised clinical trials (6653 participants) in the review. Sixty trials (6212 participants) provided data for one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those at high risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices. The follow-up in the trials that reported outcomes ranged from 6 months to 60 months. All but one of the trials were at high risk of bias. The interventions compared included beta-blockers, no active intervention, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates, nitrates, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, and portocaval shunt. Overall, 21.2% of participants who received non-selective beta-blockers ('beta-blockers') - the reference treatment (chosen because this was the most common treatment compared in the trials) - died during 8-month to 60-month follow-up. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates all had lower mortality versus no active intervention (beta-blockers: HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.67; direct comparison HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.42 to 0.83; 10 trials, 1200 participants; variceal band ligation: HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.74; direct comparison HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.12 to 2.14; 3 trials, 355 participants; sclerotherapy: HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.85; direct comparison HR 0.61, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.90; 18 trials, 1666 participants; beta-blockers plus nitrates: HR 0.41, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.85; no direct comparison). No trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation had a higher number of serious adverse events (number of events) than beta-blockers (rate ratio 10.49, 95% CrI 2.83 to 60.64; 1 trial, 168 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers plus nitrates had a higher number of 'any adverse events (number of participants)' than beta-blockers alone (OR 3.41, 95% CrI 1.11 to 11.28; 1 trial, 57 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, adverse events (number of events) were higher in sclerotherapy than in beta-blockers (rate ratio 2.49, 95% CrI 1.53 to 4.22; direct comparison rate ratio 2.47, 95% CrI 1.27 to 5.06; 2 trials, 90 participants), and in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.08 to 2.76; 1 trial, 140 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was lower in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.04 to 0.71; 1 trial, 173 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was higher in nitrates than beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 6.40, 95% CrI 1.58 to 47.42; 1 trial, 52 participants). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates may decrease mortality compared to no intervention in people with high-risk oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis and no previous history of bleeding. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in a higher number of serious adverse events than beta-blockers. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of beta-blockers versus variceal band ligation on variceal bleeding. The evidence also indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in most of the remaining comparisons.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including haemorrhage from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal haemorrhage commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Prevention is therefore important. In adults, numerous randomised clinical trials have demonstrated benefits of non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation as primary prevention in decreasing the risk of variceal haemorrhage. In children, band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as alternatives for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding. However, primary prophylaxis is not the current standard of care in children because it is unknown whether those treatments are of benefit or cause harm when used for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded (27 April 2020). We scrutinised the reference lists of retrieved publications, and performed a manual search from the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conferences (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from 2008 to 2019. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA, EMA, and WHO for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. If the search for randomised clinical trials retrieved quasi-randomised and observational studies, then we read them through to extract information on harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials by standard Cochrane methodologies. We planned to assess risk of bias and use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence per outcome. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were oesophageal variceal bleeding and adverse events not considered serious. We planned to analyse data with intention-to-treat. We planned to use Review Manager 5 to analyse the data.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. Therefore, trials with adequate power and proper design, assessing the benefits and harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy on patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality, quality of life, failure to control variceal bleeding, and adverse events are needed. Unless such trials are conducted and the results become published, we cannot make any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of these two interventions.

Endoscopic Management of Portal Hypertension-related Bleeding

Gastrointestinal bleeding as a sequela of portal hypertension can be catastrophic and fatal. Endoscopic and endosonographic therapy play a critical role in management of such bleeding- both for hemostasis of active bleeding and bleeding prophylaxis. Variceal band ligation is established as the standard intervention for esophageal varices. For other sources of portal hypertension-related bleeding, or for salvage therapy for esophageal varices, a variety of endoscopic techniques are available. Endoscopic ultrasound may be used to enhance endoscopic management, particularly for gastric and ectopic varices.

Role of band ligation for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

AIM

To summarize and critically examine the role of band ligation in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

A literature review was performed using the MEDLINE and PubMed databases. The search terms consisted of the words “endoscopic band ligation” OR “variceal band ligation” OR “ligation” AND “secondary prophylaxis” OR “secondary prevention” AND “variceal bleeding” OR “variceal hemorrhage” AND “liver cirrhosis”. The data collected from relevant meta-analyses and from the most recent randomized studies that were not included in these meta-analyses were used to evaluate the role of endoscopic band ligation in an effort to demonstrate the most recent advances in the treatment of esophageal varices.

RESULTS

This study included 11 meta-analyses published from 2002 to 2017 and 10 randomized trials published from 2010 to 2017 that evaluated the efficacy of band ligation in the secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. Overall, the results proved that band ligation was superior to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Moreover, the use of β-blockers in combination with band ligation increased the treatment effectiveness, supporting the current recommendations for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. The use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt was superior to combination therapy regarding rebleeding prophylaxis, with no difference in the survival rates; however, the results concerning the hepatic encephalopathy incidence were conflicting. Recent advances in the management of secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding have targeted a decrease in portal pressure based on the pathophysiological mechanisms of portal hypertension.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that future research should be conducted to enhance current interventions and/or to develop innovative treatment options with improved clinical endpoints.

Favorable Effects of Endoscopic Ligation Combined with Drugs on Rebleeding and Mortality in Cirrhotic Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess the effects of combination therapies (endoscopic plus drug[s], drug combinations) on variceal/any-cause rebleeding and mortality among cirrhotic patients with one previous episode of variceal hemorrhage.

SUMMARY

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for eligible studies. We included 26 randomized controlled trials involving 2,536 adults using OR to measure the effects. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) plus nadolol ranked first for reducing recurrent bleeds. Both EVL + nadolol and EVL + drugs (nadolol, sucralfate) decreased the risk of any-cause rebleeding than EVL alone (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12-0.97; OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18-0.88, respectively). Meanwhile, EVL + drugs ranked first lowering mortality rates (P-score >0.85) with a marginal superiority over EVL alone (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26-1.01). Beta-blockers with isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) also reached a marginal superiority (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.56-1.09) for improving mortality. Key Messages: Our findings indicated that EVL + nadolol might be the preferred choice to cirrhotic patients with one previous episode of variceal hemorrhage for preventing rebleeding. EVL + nadolol + sucralfate and beta-blockers + ISMN may be potential alternatives to improve mortality. Further, well-controlled studies are warranted to compare the promising combination therapies.

Management of gastroesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients: current status and future directions

Bleeding from gastroesophageal varices (GEV) is a serious event in cirrhotic patients and can cause death. According to the explosion theory, progressive portal hypertension is the primary mechanism underlying variceal bleeding. There are two approaches for treating GEV: primary prophylaxis to manage bleeding or emergency treatment for bleeding followed by secondary prophylaxis. Treatment methods can be classified into two categories: 1) Those used to decrease portal pressure, such as medication (i.e., nonselective β-blockers), radiological intervention [transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)] or a surgical approach (i.e., portacaval shunt), and 2) Those used to obstruct GEV, such as endoscopy [endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS), and tissue adhesive injection] or radiological intervention [balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO)]. Clinicians should choose a treatment method based on an understanding of its efficacy and limitations. Furthermore, elastography techniques and serum biomarkers are noninvasive methods for estimating portal pressure and may be helpful in managing GEV. The impact of these advances in cirrhosis therapy should be evaluated for their effectiveness in treating GEV.

Death from pulmonary embolism of cyanoacrylate glue following gastric varix endoscopic injection

We present the case of a 25 year old woman with a complex past medical history including Crigler-Najjar syndrome (Type 1) with a liver transplant in 1993 and subsequent development of cirrhosis with portal hypertension in the transplanted liver. The deceased presented to hospital with hematemesis and investigations showed a large gastric varix. The varix was injected with cyanoacrylate glue. Within 30 min of injection the patient became acutely hypoxic. Urgent chest X-ray demonstrated radio opaque glue within the pulmonary arteries. It was evident that future treatment was futile and supportive treatment was withdrawn. The deceased was referred for medico legal post mortem examination. The post mortem CT scan performed prior to autopsy showed widespread radio-opaque material within the pulmonary arteries. At autopsy, rubbery grey/tan "clot" occluded the major proximal and segmental pulmonary arteries. Microscopic examination of the "clot" showed clumps of erythrocytes surrounded by foreign material. We discuss this relatively uncommon but well recognized complication of variceal injection with cyanoacrylate glue.

Cyanoacrylate glue for gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cyanoacrylate (CYA) therapy has become an important component of the therapeutic toolbox of the interventional endoscopists with direct endoscopic injection accepted as first-line therapy of gastric varices. However, its generalized use has been cautioned by its serious adverse event profile.

RECENT FINDINGS

Endoscopic ultrasound guided therapy has several conceptual advantages over free-hand injection, particularly as it ensures intravascular delivery of therapy. This has allowed innovation with the use of vascular coils with or without CYA therapy, and very encouraging long-term results are now published showing reduced serious adverse events and low rebleeding rates.

SUMMARY

Direct endoscopic ultrasound guided intravascular injection of CYA is gaining widespread acceptance and offers reduced complication rates and significantly lower rebleeding rates. Data are supportive of CYA use both for primary and secondary prophylaxis of gastric varices.

Results of treatment of esophageal variceal hemorrhage with endoscopic injection of n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate in patients with Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The results of endoscopic treatment with elastic band ligation for esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis remain poor. In comparison with treatment with elastic band ligation, we have found lower rates of rebleeding and mortality with n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate injections. Thus, the aim of the current study was to describe our unit's 10 years of experience with injection of n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate to control esophageal variceal ruptures in patients with Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A single-center, retrospective study was conducted. Sixty-three patients with Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis had been admitted to the center with an acute episode of esophageal variceal bleeding. All were treated with injection of n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate. The patients were assigned to 1 of 2 groups according to their Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis scores: group I (score range, 10 through 13 points) and group II (score, 14 or 15 points). The 3 variables studied were rates of initial failure to control bleeding, failure to prevent rebleeding (secondary prophylaxis), and mortality. Patients in the 2 groups (group I, n = 50; group II, n = 13) had similar characteristics.

RESULTS

Bleeding was successfully controlled in almost 75 % of the patients during the first 5 days after treatment, with no significant differences observed between groups I and II. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups with respect to mortality rate for the first 5 days after treatment. Thirty-four patients (54 %) were free of bleeding at 6 weeks after treatment, with a significant difference noted between the groups: group I, 64 %, versus group II, 15.4 % (P < 0.001). The overall mortality rate was 44.4 %, with a significant difference noted between the groups: group I, 34 %, versus group II, 84.6 % (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic injection of n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate is a valid treatment option to control esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with a Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis score in the range of 10 through 13 points.

Results of treatment of esophageal variceal hemorrhage with endoscopic injection of n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate in patients with Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The results of endoscopic treatment with elastic band ligation for esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis remain poor. In comparison with treatment with elastic band ligation, we have found lower rates of rebleeding and mortality with n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate injections. Thus, the aim of the current study was to describe our unit's 10 years of experience with injection of n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate to control esophageal variceal ruptures in patients with Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A single-center, retrospective study was conducted. Sixty-three patients with Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis had been admitted to the center with an acute episode of esophageal variceal bleeding. All were treated with injection of n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate. The patients were assigned to 1 of 2 groups according to their Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis scores: group I (score range, 10 through 13 points) and group II (score, 14 or 15 points). The 3 variables studied were rates of initial failure to control bleeding, failure to prevent rebleeding (secondary prophylaxis), and mortality. Patients in the 2 groups (group I, n = 50; group II, n = 13) had similar characteristics.

RESULTS

Bleeding was successfully controlled in almost 75 % of the patients during the first 5 days after treatment, with no significant differences observed between groups I and II. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups with respect to mortality rate for the first 5 days after treatment. Thirty-four patients (54 %) were free of bleeding at 6 weeks after treatment, with a significant difference noted between the groups: group I, 64 %, versus group II, 15.4 % (P < 0.001). The overall mortality rate was 44.4 %, with a significant difference noted between the groups: group I, 34 %, versus group II, 84.6 % (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic injection of n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate is a valid treatment option to control esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with a Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis score in the range of 10 through 13 points.

Endoscopic injection of cyanoacrylate glue versus other endoscopic procedures for acute bleeding gastric varices in people with portal hypertension

BACKGROUND

In people with portal hypertension, gastric varices are less prevalent than oesophageal varices. The risk of bleeding from gastric varices seems to be lower than from oesophageal varices; however, when gastric varices bleed, it is often severe and associated with higher mortality. Endoscopic sclerotherapy of bleeding gastric varices with N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate glue (cyanoacrylate) is considered the best haemostasis with a lower risk of re-bleeding compared with other endoscopic methods. However, there are some inconsistencies between trials regarding mortality, incidence of re-bleeding, and adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy using cyanoacrylate compared with other endoscopic sclerotherapy procedures or with variceal band ligation for treating acute gastric variceal bleeding with or without vasoactive drugs in people with portal hypertension and to assess the best dosage of cyanoacrylate.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded from inception to September 2014 and reference lists of articles. We included trials irrespective of trial setting, language, publication status, or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing sclerotherapy using cyanoacrylate versus other endoscopic methods (sclerotherapy using alcohol-based compounds or endoscopy band ligation) for acute gastric variceal bleeding in people with portal hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed the review following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Module.We presented results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), with I(2) statistic values as a measure of intertrial heterogeneity. We analysed data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models, and reported the results with random-effects models. We performed subgroup, sensitivity, and trial sequential analyses to evaluate the robustness of the overall results, risk of bias, sources of intertrial heterogeneity, and risk of random errors.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six randomised clinical trials with three different comparisons: one trial compared two different doses of cyanoacrylate in 91 adults, bleeding actively from all types of gastric varices; one trial compared cyanoacrylate versus alcohol-based compounds in 37 adults with active or acute bleeding from isolated gastric varices only; and four trials compared cyanoacrylate versus endoscopic band ligation in 365 adults, with active or acute bleeding from all types of gastric varices. Main outcomes in the included trials were bleeding-related mortality, failure of intervention, re-bleeding, adverse events, and control of bleeding. Follow-up varied from six to 26 months. The participants included in these trials had chronic liver disease of different severities, were predominantly men, and most were from Eastern countries. We judged all trials at high risk of bias. Application of quality criteria for all outcomes yielded very low quality grade of the evidence in the three analyses, except for the low quality evidence rated for the re-bleeding outcome in the cyanoacrylate versus endoscopic band ligation comparison. Two different doses of cyanoacrylate: we found very low quality evidence from one trial for the effect of 0.5 mL compared with 1.0 mL of cyanoacrylate on all-cause mortality (20/44 (45.5%) with 0.5 mL versus 21/47 (45%) with 1.0 mL; RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.60), 30-day mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.41 to 2.80), failure of intervention (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.56 to 2.05), prevention of re-bleeding (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.73 to 2.31), adverse events reported as fever (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.98), and control of bleeding (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.38). Cyanoacrylate versus alcohol-based compounds: we found very low quality evidence from one trial for the effect of cyanoacrylate versus alcohol-based compounds on 30-day mortality (2/20 (10%) with cyanoacrylate versus 4/17 (23.5%) with alcohol-based compound; RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.09 to 2.04), failure of intervention (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.35), prevention of re-bleeding (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.30 to 2.45), adverse events reported as fever (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.80), and control of bleeding (RR 1.79; 95% CI 1.13 to 2.84). Cyanoacrylate versus endoscopic band ligation: we found very low quality evidence for the effect of cyanoacrylate versus endoscopic band ligation on bleeding-related mortality (44/185 (23.7%) with cyanoacrylate versus 50/181 (27.6%) with endoscopic band ligation; RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.31), failure of intervention (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.23 to 5.69), complications (RR 2.81; 95% CI 0.69 to 11.49), and control of bleeding (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.27). There was low quality evidence for the prevention of re-bleeding (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.88). Trial sequential analysis showed that the analyses were underpowered (diversity-adjusted required information size was 5290 participants for bleeding-related mortality).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that endoscopic sclerotherapy using cyanoacrylate may be more effective than endoscopic band ligation in terms of preventing re-bleeding from gastric varices. However, due to the very low quality of the evidence, we are very uncertain about our estimates on all-cause and bleeding-related mortality, failure of intervention, adverse events, and control of bleeding. The trials were at high risk of bias; the number of the included randomised clinical trials and number of participants included in each trial was small; and there was evidence of internal heterogeneity across trials, indirectness of evidence in terms of population, and possible publication bias.The effectiveness of different doses of cyanoacrylate and the comparison of cyanoacrylate versus alcohol compounds to treat variceal bleeding in people with portal hypertension is uncertain due to the very low quality of the evidence.The shortcomings mentioned call for more evidence from larger trials that need to be conducted according to the SPIRIT statement and reported according to CONSORT guidelines.

Screening esophagus during routine ultrasound: medical and cost benefits

OBJECTIVE

Cost-effectiveness analysis is an approach used to determine the value of a medical care option and refers to a method used to assess the costs and health benefits of an intervention. Upon the diagnosis of liver cirrhosis, the current guidelines recommend that all cirrhotic patients have to be screened for the presence of esophageal varices by endoscopy. In addition, patients with a positive family history of esophageal cancer are screened annually. These approaches place a heavy burden on endoscopy units, and repeated testing over time may have a detrimental effect on patient compliance.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Following the recommendations of a recent study entitled 'Detection of risky esophageal varices using two dimensional ultrasound: when to perform endoscopy', the intra-abdominal portion of the esophagus of 1100 patients was divided into a hepatic group, which included 650 patients, and a nonhepatic group, which included 450 patients, who presented with manifestations of liver diseases and gastrointestinal symptoms, respectively, and were examined using standard two-dimensional ultrasound (US) to evaluate cost effectiveness, standard issues, and medical benefits using conventional US.

RESULTS

The overall effectiveness analysis of 1100 patients yielded a 41% cost standard benefit calculated to be $114,760 in a 6-month study.

CONCLUSION

Two-dimensional US can play an important role in screening for esophageal abnormalities, thus saving money and time. The esophagus should be screened during routine conventional abdominal US.

Endoscopic treatment of esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension with a six-week mortality rate of approximately 20%. Patients with medium- or large-sized varices can be treated for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding using two strategies: non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL). Both treatments are equally effective. Patients with acute variceal bleeding are critically ill patients. The available data suggest that vasoactive drugs, combined with endoscopic therapy and antibiotics, are the best treatment strategy with EVL being the endoscopic procedure of choice. In cases of uncontrolled bleeding, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered stents are recommended. Approximately 60% of the patients experience rebleeding, with a mortality rate of 30%. Secondary prophylaxis should start on day six following the initial bleeding episode. The combination of NSBBs and EVL is the recommended management, whereas TIPS with PTFE-covered stents are the preferred option in patients who fail endoscopic and pharmacologic treatment. Apart from injection sclerotherapy and EVL, other endoscopic procedures, including tissue adhesives, endoloops, endoscopic clipping and argon plasma coagulation, have been used in the management of esophageal varices. However, their efficacy and safety, compared to standard endoscopic treatment, remain to be further elucidated. There are safety issues accompanying endoscopic techniques with aspiration pneumonia occurring at a rate of approximately 2.5%. In conclusion, future research is needed to improve treatment strategies, including novel endoscopic techniques with better efficacy, lower cost, and fewer adverse events.

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