Randomized controlled trial of monthly versus biweekly endoscopic variceal ligation for the prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding

Visual prediction models for predicting rebleeding events after the first esophageal variceal ligation

BACKGROUND

Sequential endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is a standard therapy for esophageal variceal bleeding, yet poor compliance often compromises its efficacy. This study aimed to identify high-risk factors for rebleeding after initial EVL and establish a visual predictive model to improve patient follow-up and education.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we enrolled patients who underwent first-time EVL for esophageal variceal bleeding at Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, between January 2017 and January 2023. Patients were allocated to training and validation cohorts. Clinical data were systematically collected, and rebleeding incidence rates within 6 weeks and 6 months post-EVL were analyzed. Logistic regression was used to explore high-risk factors influencing postoperative rebleeding and to establish visual models, evaluated with a validation set.

RESULTS

The study involved 629 patients in the training set and 312 in the validation set. Rebleeding occurred in 34.8% (219/629) and 80.1% (504/629) of patients within 6 weeks and 6 months after initial EVL, respectively. Esophageal variceal severity and platelet count emerged as shared independent risk factors for both 6-week and 6-month rebleeding. The nomogram models demonstrated robust predictive accuracy in the validation cohort, with areas under the curve (AUC) of 0.942 (95% CI 0.901-0.983) for 6-week rebleeding risk and 0.852 (95% CI 0.759-0.945) for 6-month rebleeding risk.

CONCLUSION

This study proposes a visual prediction model designed to assess the risk of rebleeding following initial EVL in patients with esophageal variceal hemorrhage to optimize clinical decision-making and improve patient management strategies.

Predictors and management of post-banding ulcer bleeding in cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Post-banding ulcer bleeding (PBUB) is an understudied complication of oesophageal varices endoscopic band ligation (EBL). This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed at: (a) evaluating the incidence of PBUB in patients with cirrhosis treated with EBL in primary or secondary prophylaxis or urgent treatment for acute variceal bleeding and (b) identifying predictors of PBUB.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of articles in English published in 2006-2022 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Searches were made in eight databases including Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Library. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to determine the incidence, mean interval and predictors of PBUB.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies (9034 patients) were included. The incidence of PBUB was 5.5% (95% CI 4.3-7.1). The mean time for it to occur was 11 days (95% CI 9.94-11.97). Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (OR 1.162, 95% CI 1.047-1.291) and EBL done in emergency setting (OR 4.902, 95% CI 2.99-8.05) independently predicted post-ligation ulcer bleeding. Treatment included drugs, endoscopic procedures and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Refractory bleeding was treated with self-expandable metallic stents or balloon tamponade. Mortality was on average 22.3% (95% CI 14.1-33.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with high MELD score and receiving EBL in an emergency setting are more prone to develop PBUB. Prognosis is still poor and the best therapeutic strategy to address remains to be ascertained.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD; due to viruses, alcohol, and/or nonobese [BMI < 30 kg/m2] nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) and clinically significant portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] > 10 mmHg and/or liver stiffness by transient elastography > 25 kPa) should receive, if no contraindications, nonselective beta blocker (NSBB) therapy (preferably carvedilol) to prevent the development of variceal bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in those patients unable to receive NSBB therapy with a screening upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy that demonstrates high risk esophageal varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the endoscopic prophylactic treatment of choice. EBL should be repeated every 2-4 weeks until variceal eradication is achieved. Thereafter, surveillance EGD should be performed every 3-6 months in the first year following eradication.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage (UGIH) and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 70 g/L prompting RBC transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin of 70-90 g/L is desired.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends that patients with ACLD presenting with suspected acute variceal bleeding be risk stratified according to the Child-Pugh score and MELD score, and by documentation of active/inactive bleeding at the time of upper GI endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5 : ESGE recommends the vasoactive agents terlipressin, octreotide, or somatostatin be initiated at the time of presentation in patients with suspected acute variceal bleeding and be continued for a duration of up to 5 days.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends antibiotic prophylaxis using ceftriaxone 1 g/day for up to 7 days for all patients with ACLD presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage, or in accordance with local antibiotic resistance and patient allergies.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends, in the absence of contraindications, intravenous erythromycin 250 mg be given 30-120 minutes prior to upper GI endoscopy in patients with suspected acute variceal hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends that, in patients with suspected variceal hemorrhage, endoscopic evaluation should take place within 12 hours from the time of patient presentation provided the patient has been hemodynamically resuscitated.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 : ESGE recommends EBL for the treatment of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH).Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 : ESGE recommends that, in patients at high risk for recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding following successful endoscopic hemostasis (Child-Pugh C  ≤ 13 or Child-Pugh B > 7 with active EVH at the time of endoscopy despite vasoactive agents, or HVPG > 20 mmHg), pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) within 72 hours (preferably within 24 hours) must be considered.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 11 : ESGE recommends that, for persistent esophageal variceal bleeding despite vasoactive pharmacological and endoscopic hemostasis therapy, urgent rescue TIPS should be considered (where available).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 12 : ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for acute gastric (cardiofundal) variceal (GOV2, IGV1) hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 13: ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or EBL in patients with GOV1-specific bleeding.Strong recommendations, moderate quality evidence. 14: ESGE suggests urgent rescue TIPS or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for gastric variceal bleeding when there is a failure of endoscopic hemostasis or early recurrent bleeding.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 15: ESGE recommends that patients who have undergone EBL for acute EVH should be scheduled for follow-up EBLs at 1- to 4-weekly intervals to eradicate esophageal varices (secondary prophylaxis).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 16: ESGE recommends the use of NSBBs (propranolol or carvedilol) in combination with endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis in EVH in patients with ACLD.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

Efficacy of early re-ligation after endoscopic gastric glue injection combined with endoscopic variceal ligation in preventing rebleeding of esophagogastric varices in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

The rate of rebleeding after successful hemostasis by endoscopic gastric glue injection (EGGI) combined with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in ruptured esophagogastric varices (EHV) in cirrhosis is still high, and a second EVL is often required, but the optimal interval between the first and second EVL has not been determined.

AIM

To explore the effect of timing of the second EVL after EGGI combined with EVL in the prevention of rebleeding from esophagogastric varices in patients with liver cirrhosis.

METHODS

A total of 121 patients with cirrhosis and hemorrhage who were treated at our hospital from May 2017 to September 2019 were retrospectively selected and divided into 1 mo group (n = 27), 2 mo group (n = 32), 3 mo group (n = 37), and > 3 mo group (n = 25) based on the interval between the first and second EVL. The curative effect, rebleeding rate, fatality rate, rate of complications and portal hemodynamic changes (splenic vein, portal vein, and left gastric vein diameter and mean blood flow velocity) after the completion of the second EVL were compared among the groups.

RESULTS

The total effective rate in the 1 mo group was 100.00% (27/27), significantly higher than those of the 2 mo [78.13% (25/32)], 3 mo [75.68% (28/37)], and > 3 mo [68.00% (17/25)] groups (P < 0.05). The rebleeding rate in the 1 mo group [3.70% (1/27)] was significantly lower than those of the 2 mo [31.25% (10/32)], 3 mo [37.84% (14/32)], and > 3 mo [68.00% (17/25)] groups (P < 0.05); the rebleeding rate in the 2 mo group was significantly lower than that of the > 3 mo group (P < 0.05). The mortality rate in the 1 mo group (0) was significantly lower than that of the > 3 mo group [24.00% (6/25)] (P < 0.05). The average blood flow velocity of the splenic vein and portal vein after the second EVL in the 1 mo group [(32.42 ± 3.36) cm/s and (27.51 ± 2.79) cm/s, respectively] were significantly higher than those of the 2 mo [(30.02 ± 2.77) cm/s and (24.55 ± 2.61) cm/s, respectively], 3 mo [(29.11 ± 3.24) cm/s and (24.19 ± 2.38) cm/s, respectively], and > 3 mo [(29.04 ± 2.81) cm/s and (23.89 ± 2.11) cm/s, respectively] groups (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Early re-ligation after EGGI combined with EVL can effectively, safely, and reliably improve the severity of varicose veins and reduce the rebleeding rate, and has a positive impact on the portal venous system.

Short-term vasoactive agent treatment driven by physicians' preference in acute esophageal variceal bleeding in a tertiary center

Background

Vasoactive drugs are frequently used in combination with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in treatment of acute esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB). The aim of study was to assess physicians’ preference of vasoactive agents in acute EVB, their reasons of preference and efficacy and safety of these short course regimens.

Methods

Cirrhotic patients with suspected EVB were screened (n = 352). Eligible patients were assigned based on the physician’s preference to either somatostatin (group S) or terlipressin (group T) followed by EVL. In group S, intravenous bolus (250 µg) of somatostatin followed by 250 µg/hour was continued for three days. In group T, 2 mg bolus injection of terlipressin was followed by 1 mg infusion every 6 h for three days.

Results

A total of 150 patients were enrolled; 41 in group S and 109 in group T. Reasons for physician preference was convenience in administration (77.1%) for group T and good safety profile (73.2%) for group S. Very early rebleeding within 49–120 h occurred in one patient in groups S and T (p = 0.469). Four patients in group S and 14 patients in group T have variceal rebleeding episodes within 6–42 d (p = 0.781). Overall treatment-related adverse effects were compatible in groups S and T (p = 0.878), but the total cost of terlipressin and somatostatin differed i.e., USD 621.32 and USD 496.43 respectively.

Conclusions

Terlipressin is the preferred vasoactive agent by physicians in our institution for acute EVB. Convenience in administration and safety profile are main considerations of physicians. Safety and hemostatic effects did not differ significantly between short-course somatostatin or terlipressin, although terlipressin is more expensive.

Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension

Acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage is a dreaded complication of portal hypertension. Its management has evolved rapidly in recent years. Endoscopic therapy is often employed to arrest bleeding varices as well as to prevent early rebleeding. The combination of vasoconstrictor and endoscopic therapy is superior to vasoconstrictor or endoscopic therapy alone for control of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. After control of acute variceal bleeding, combination of banding ligation and beta-blockers is generally recommended to prevent variceal rebleeding. To prevent the catastrophic event of acute variceal bleeding, endoscopic banding ligation is an important tool in the prophylaxis of first bleeding. Endoscopic obturation with cyanoacrylate is usually utilized to arrest acute gastric variceal hemorrhage as well as to prevent rebleeding. It can be concluded that endoscopic therapies play a pivotal role in management of portal hypertensive bleeding.

食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血的内镜循证治疗进展

循证医学证据是评价临床治疗手段安全性和有效性的最佳证据. 食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血(esophagogastric variceal bleeding, EVB)是消化科常见危急重症之一, 严重威胁着肝硬化患者生命安全和身心健康, 近年来, 能够有效运用循证医学方法为食管胃底静脉曲张的治疗寻找最佳临床依据、制定循证治疗方案成为临床医生的迫切要求. 本文就EVB的内镜下治疗方面的循证医学研究进展做一综述.

Improving the management of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis

Gastrointestinal bleeding remains a major cause of mortality in patients with cirrhosis. The most common source of bleeding is from gastroesophageal varices but non-variceal bleeding from peptic ulcer disease also carries a significant risk in patients with liver disease. The prognosis is related to the severity of the underlying liver disease, and deaths often occur due to liver failure, infection or renal failure. Optimal management should therefore not only achieve haemostasis but address these complications as well. The management of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis includes a range of medical, endoscopic and radiological interventions. This article updates the recent developments in this area and highlights topics where further research is still required.

Successful hemostasis and resection of a bleeding gastric polyp by endoscopic banding ligation in a uremic patient taking antiplatelet agent

The modalities to treat bleeding polyps include electrocautery snare polypectomy, adrenaline injection, clipping, argon plasma coagulation and surgery. We hereby describe an endoscopic banding ligation method for the management of bleeding gastric polyp in a patient receiving antiplatelet therapy. A 66-year-old man presented with a five month-history of intermittent tarry stool passage, nausea and fatigue. He had a past history of peripheral arterial occlusive disease and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus with end stage renal disease, and regularly took antiplatelet agent (ticlopidine 100 mg thrice daily) for cardiovascular prophylaxis. On examination, the patient was grossly pale, ill in appearance, with a pulse of 110/min and blood pressure of 108/76 mmHg. Laboratory examination revealed hemoglobin of 7.8 g/dl. Endoscopic examination revealed a bleeding sessile polyp over the posterior wall of the antrum. Endoscopic banding ligation was carried out by a pneumoactivated esophageal variceal ligation device set. Bleeding stopped immediately following the procedure, and the patient recovered uneventfully. It is suggested that endoscopic banding ligation is a safe and effective technique for the treatment of bleeding gastrointestinal polyps in patients receiving antiplatelet therapy.

Randomized trial of 1-week versus 2-week intervals for endoscopic ligation in the treatment of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding

The appropriate interval between ligation sessions for treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding is uncertain. The optimal interval would provide variceal eradication as rapidly as possible to lessen early rebleeding while minimizing ligation-induced adverse events. We randomly assigned patients hospitalized with acute esophageal variceal bleeding who had successful ligation at presentation to repeat ligation at 1-week or 2-week intervals. Beta-blocker therapy was also prescribed. Ligation was performed at the assigned interval until varices were eradicated and then at 3 and 9 months after eradication. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with variceal eradication at 4 weeks. Four-week variceal eradication occurred more often in the 1-week than in the 2-week group: 37/45 (82%) versus 23/45 (51%); difference = 31%, 95% confidence interval 12%-48%. Eradication occurred more rapidly in the 1-week group (18.1 versus 30.8 days, difference = -12.7 days, 95% confidence interval -20.0 to -5.4 days). The mean number of endoscopies to achieve eradication or to the last endoscopy in those not achieving eradication was comparable in the 1-week and 2-week groups (2.3 versus 2.1), with the mean number of postponed ligation sessions 0.3 versus 0.1 (difference = 0.2, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.4). Rebleeding at 4 weeks (4% versus 4%) and 8 weeks (11% versus 9%), dysphagia/odynophagia/chest pain (9% versus 2%), strictures (0% versus 0%), and mortality (7% versus 7%) were similar with 1-week and 2-week intervals.

CONCLUSION

One-week ligation intervals led to more rapid eradication than 2-week intervals without an increase in complications or number of endoscopies and without a reduction in rebleeding or other clinical outcomes; the decision regarding ligation intervals may be individualized based on patient and physician preferences and local logistics and resources. (Hepatology 2016;64:549-555).

Long-term efficacy of endoscopic ligation plus cyanoacrylate injection with or without sclerotherapy for variceal bleeding

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes and efficacy of continued ligation plus cyanoacrylate injection compared with those of combined ligation and sclerotherapy plus cyanoacrylate injection for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with concomitant esophageal and gastric varices.

METHODS

Medical records of the patients who were admitted for variceal bleeding due to liver cirrhosis were retrospectively reviewed and their related data was collected. The patients were divided into two groups, including the continued ligation plus cyanoacrylate injection group [the sclerotherapy (-) group] and the combined ligation and sclerotherapy plus cyanoacrylate injection group [the sclerotherapy (+) group]. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was conducted and log-rank test was used to compare the differences between the two groups.

RESULTS

Altogether 125 patients were enrolled between 1 April 2004 and 31 December 2012. After a median follow-up of 23.4 months, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in regard to variceal rebleeding (29.7% vs 47.5%, P = 0.097) and mortality (12.5% vs 14.8%, P = 0.879). Among patients with ascites the cumulative rebleeding rate was significantly lower in the sclerotherapy (-) group (26.3% vs 59.4%, P = 0.020). A relapse of bleeding after the initial endoscopic therapy was an independent prognostic factor of rebleeding (P = 0.004). Portal thrombosis was an independent prognostic factor for mortality (P = 0.044).

CONCLUSION

No superiority of combined ligation and sclerotherapy compared with continued ligation and cyanoacrylate injection for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding is observed.

Upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage: an update

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) haemorrhage is a common cause for admission to hospital and is associated with a mortality of around 10%. Prompt assessment and resuscitation are vital, as are risk stratification of the severity of bleeding, early involvement of the multidisciplinary team and timely access to endoscopy, preferably within 24 h. The majority of bleeds are due to peptic ulcers for which Helicobacter pylori and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents are the main risk factors. Although proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used before endoscopy, this is controversial. Pre-endoscopic risk stratification with the Glasgow Blatchford score is recommended as is the use of the Rockall score postendoscopy. Endoscopic therapy, with at least two haemostatic modalities, remains the mainstay of treating high-risk lesions and reduces rebleeding rates and mortality. High-dose PPI therapy after endoscopic haemostasis also reduces rebleeding rates and mortality. Variceal oesophageal haemorrhage is associated with a higher rebleeding rate and risk of death. Antibiotics and vasopressin analogues are advised in suspected variceal bleeding; however, endoscopic variceal band ligation remains the haemostatic treatment of choice. Balloon tamponade remains useful in the presence of torrential variceal haemorrhage or when endoscopy fails to secure haemostasis, and can be a bridge to further endoscopic attempts or placement of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. This review aims to provide an update on the latest evidence-based recommendations for the management of acute upper GI haemorrhage.

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

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