Drugs plus ligation to prevent rebleeding in cirrhosis: an updated systematic review

Secondary Prophylaxis of Cirrhotic Gastric Variceal Bleeding: Addition of Non-Selective Beta-Blockers to Endoscopic Combined Treatment

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether the addition of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) provides further benefit after combined use of tissue adhesive and endoscopic variceal ligation for bleeding gastroesophageal varices.

OBJECTIVE

This is the first cohort study comparing the secondary prophylactic efficacy of adding NSBB to combined endoscopic treatment in cirrhotic patients with gastric varices (without inclusion of isolated gastric varices [IGVs], which are rare in patients with cirrhosis without splanchnic thrombosis).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed two matched large cohorts of cirrhotic patients with gastric varices who received combined endoscopic treatment and were assigned to receive NSBB treatment or not as secondary prophylaxis. Further sub-analyses were performed. The 5-year overall survival and rebleeding rates were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 490 patients were enrolled, 130 of whom took NSBB. After propensity score matching (PSM), both groups comprised 130 patients. No significant difference between the NSBB and non-NSBB groups was observed regarding 5-year survival (87.40% vs. 83.64%, HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.33-1.17), while NSBB decreased the 5-year rebleeding rate from 45.7% to 30.64% (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39-0.82). The same was true when comparing the 2 groups after PSM. NSBB (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37-0.79) and splenectomy (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.96) independently reduced rebleeding but did not affect survival. In patients without splenectomy, NSBB treatment improved survival (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.89) and reduced rebleeding (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34-0.78).

CONCLUSION

We show for the first time that adding NSBB to combined endoscopic therapy significantly reduced recurrent variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients but did not improve overall survival, except for patients without splenectomy. The addition of NSBB for patients receiving combined endoscopic treatment of gastroesophageal varices provides benefits but does not prolong overall survival.

Endoscopic variceal ligation combined with carvedilol versus endoscopic variceal ligation combined with propranolol for the treatment of oesophageal variceal bleeding in cirrhosis: study protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Liver cirrhosis and its severe complication, oesophageal variceal bleeding (EVB), pose significant health risks. Standard treatment for EVB combines non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL). Carvedilol, an NSBB with additional benefits, is preferred for compensated cirrhosis. However, no randomised controlled trial (RCT) has compared carvedilol with propranolol, a conventional NSBB, in combination with EVL for secondary prophylaxis. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of these treatments in preventing variceal rebleeding or death in patients with cirrhosis and EVB.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This multicentre, RCT is scheduled to begin in December 2024, with recruitment and follow-up continuing until December 2026. Eligible participants are patients with liver cirrhosis and EVB. Participants are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive EVL combined with either carvedilol or propranolol. The primary endpoint is the incidence of variceal rebleeding or all-cause death. Secondary endpoints include all-cause death, liver-related death, each of the complications of portal hypertension (overt ascites, overt hepatic encephalopathy, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatorenal syndrome, portal vein thrombosis), hepatocellular carcinoma, changes in liver function (assessed by Child-Pugh and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores), changes in liver stiffness, changes in spleen stiffness, and adverse events. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to evaluate the consistency and robustness of the treatment effects. A total sample size of 524 patients (262 per group) is required to detect a significant difference between the treatment arms.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol has been approved by the ethics committee of the First Hospital of China Medical University (No. 2024-656-2). The study will follow the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The findings of this trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and healthcare professionals to guide future clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration number: ChiCTR2400089692).

Environmental and Clinical Factors Concerning Gastrointestinal Bleeding: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses

OBJECTIVES

Gastrointestinal bleeding, an emergency and critical disease, is affected by multiple factors. This study aims to systematically summarize and appraise various factors associated with gastrointestinal bleeding.

DESIGN

Umbrella review.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Meta-analyses that evaluated environmental and clinical factors concerning gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search to identify eligible meta-analyses. For each included study, the risk estimates, heterogeneity estimates, small-study effects, excess significance tests, and publication biases were recalculated and appraised. Furthermore, we considered the methodologic quality and classified the evidence.

RESULTS

In this study, 51 beneficial and 44 harmful associations were found. This study found that preemptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt was the most reliable treatment to reduce gastroesophageal variceal bleeding and mortality risk, followed by antibiotics. For gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding, Yunnan Baiyao and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were relatively dependable treatment drugs, and the comparatively reliable prophylactic drugs comprised PPIs and H2-receptor antagonists. Patients with hemodynamic instability and larger ulcers had a higher risk of rebleeding. Both weekend admissions and the combination of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were high-risk factors for upper gastrointestinal bleeding and mortality. We also found that tranexamic acid was a credible drug for overall gastrointestinal bleeding. Meanwhile, aspirin, warfarin, diabetes, and renal failure were all high-risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Altogether, many factors can substantially influence gastrointestinal bleeding. Therefore, in daily life and clinical practice, we should not only remain cautious in prescribing and taking some drugs but also pay attention to the management of lifestyle and underlying diseases. If necessary, protective drugs should be properly supplemented.

Portal hypertension: recommendations for diagnosis and treatment. Consensus document sponsored by the Spanish Association for the Study of the Liver (AEEH) and the Biomedical Research Network Centre for Liver and Digestive Diseases (CIBERehd)

Portal hypertension is a hemodynamic abnormality that complicates the course of cirrhosis, as well as other diseases that affect the portal venous circulation. The development of portal hypertension compromises prognosis, especially when it rises above a certain threshold known as clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). In the consensus conference on Portal Hypertension promoted by the Spanish Association for the Study of the Liver and the Hepatic and Digestive diseases area of the Biomedical Research Networking Center (CIBERehd), different aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of portal hypertension caused by cirrhosis or other diseases were discussed. The outcome of this discussion was a set of recommendations that achieved varying degrees of consensus among panelists and are reflected in this consensus document. The six areas under discussion were: the relevance of CSPH and the non-invasive methods used for its diagnosis and that of cirrhosis, the prevention of the first episode of decompensation and its recurrence, the treatment of acute variceal bleeding and other complications of portal hypertension, the indications for the use of TIPS, and finally, the diagnosis and treatment of liver vascular diseases.

Portal hypertension: recommendations for diagnosis and treatment. Consensus document sponsored by the Spanish Association for the Study of the Liver (AEEH) and the Biomedical Research Network Center for Liver and Digestive Diseases (CIBERehd)

Portal hypertension is a hemodynamic abnormality that complicates the course of cirrhosis, as well as other diseases that affect the portal venous circulation. The development of portal hypertension compromises prognosis, especially when it rises above a certain threshold known as clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). In the consensus conference on Portal Hypertension promoted by the Spanish Association for the Study of the Liver and the Hepatic and Digestive diseases area of the Biomedical Research Networking Center (CIBERehd), different aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of portal hypertension caused by cirrhosis or other diseases were discussed. The outcome of this discussion was a set of recommendations that achieved varying degrees of consensus among panelists and are reflected in this consensus document. The six areas under discussion were: the relevance of clinically significant portal hypertension and the non-invasive methods used for its diagnosis and that of cirrhosis, the prevention of the first episode of decompensation and its recurrence, the treatment of acute variceal bleeding and other complications of portal hypertension, the indications for the use of TIPS, and finally, the diagnosis and treatment of liver vascular diseases.

Efficacy of endoscopic therapy combined with partial splenic embolization versus Hassab's operation for patients with liver cirrhosis with esophageal variceal bleeding and hypersplenism: a multicenter cohort study based on propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

The prognosis comparison between endoscopic therapy + partial splenic embolization (PSE) and Hassab's operation is unclear in the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis. This study aimed to compare the outcome of endoscopic therapy + PSE (EP) with a combination of splenectomy + pericardial devascularization procedure, known as Hassab's operation (SH) for esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis with hypersplenism.

METHODS

We enrolled 328 patients, including 125 and 203 patients who underwent EP and SH, respectively. Each group consisted of 110 patients after propensity score matching (PSM). Subsequently, we recorded and analyzed bleeding episodes and mortality in 6 months and 1, 2, and 5 years after therapies.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time in the EP and SH groups was 53 and 64 months, respectively. Bleeding incidence 6 months after therapies in the EP group was lower than that in the SH group (1.8% vs. 10.0%, P = 0.010). Additionally, complications in the perioperative period were not significantly different (0% vs. 3.6%, P = 0.008). However, the bleeding rate between the two groups was not significantly different at 1, 2, and 5 years after therapies (7.3% vs. 12.7%, P = 0.157; 10.9% vs. 16.4%, P = 0.205; 30.6% vs. 31.8%, P = 0.801), as well as mortality rate (4.5% vs 7.3%, P = 0.571).

CONCLUSION

Compared with SH therapy, the bleeding rate 6 months after EP therapy was lower, but the long-term bleeding rate was similar.

β1-blockers in the reduction of bleeding risk in patients prescribed with potent dual antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

β1-blockers could improve clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease by lowering the heart rate, blood pressure, and myocardial contractility. Moreover, recent studies have suggested that β1-blockers may also have the potential to reduce bleeding risk.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the association between β1-blockers and bleeding risk in the patients prescribed with potent dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

Patients with ACS or undergoing PCI treated by DAPT of ticagrelor and aspirin were consecutively recruited. Follow-up for all eligible patients was conducted for 1 year. Major bleeding outcomes were defined as events that were type ≥2 based on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 1,113 eligible ticagrelor-treated patients were recruited. During the 1-year follow-up interval, 142 (12.6%) patients experienced BARC ≥2 bleedings including 23 patients (2.1%) suffering BARC ≥3 bleedings, with the most common site of bleeding located in the gastrointestinal tract. β1-blockers treatment was associated with a lower risk of BARC ≥2 bleedings (11.2% vs. 23.3%, adjusted HR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.28-0.62, P < 0.01). Moreover, metoprolol (11.1% vs. 23.3%, adjusted HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.37-0.83, P < 0.01) and bisoprolol (11.3% vs. 23.3%, adjusted HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.33-0.96, P = 0.04) had similar effects on the reduction of bleeding risk.

CONCLUSION

β1-blockers might be beneficial for the reduction of bleeding risk in potent dual antiplatelet therapy patients with ACS or undergoing PCI.

Novel approaches in the medical management of compensated cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

Classically, clinical practice guidelines and expert recommendations have focused on the management of decompensated cirrhotic patients, so we focused this review on improving care for compensated cirrhotic patients who are followed up in outpatient clinics.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed the current methods for establishing liver function, the diagnosis and management of advanced chronic liver disease and clinically significant portal hypertension as well as the prevention of its complications, with special attention to covert hepatic encephalopathy, we also paid attention to the extrahepatic complications of cirrhosis and the palliative care. All this from the perspective of evidence-based medicine and trying to empower precision medicine. The literature search was undertaken by PubMed with 'cirrhosis,' 'advanced chronic liver disease,' 'liver function,' 'portal hypertension,' 'covert hepatic encephalopathy,' 'minimal hepatic encephalopathy,' 'palliative care' as MeSH terms.

EXPERT OPINION

We must offer compensated cirrhotic patients specific care and measures to prevent the progression of the disease and the appearance of its complications beyond the calculation of liver function and imaging screening for hepatocellular carcinoma that we perform every six months. Entities that have typically received little attention, such as covert hepatic encephalopathy, extrahepatic complications and symptoms of cirrhosis, and palliative care, must come to the spotlight.

The Role of Endoscopy for Primary and Secondary Prophylaxis of Variceal Bleeding

Cirrhosis is associated with a high morbidity and mortality. One of the most serious and unpredictable complication of cirrhosis, with a high mortality rate, is bleeding from esophagogastric varices. Endoscopic screening of varices followed by primary prophylactic treatment with beta blockers or band ligation in the presence of large esophageal varices will reduce the variceal bleeding rates and thereby reduce mortality risks in those with advanced cirrhosis. There is a paucity of data on primary prophylaxis of gastric varices but secondary prophylaxis includes glue injection, balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration, or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting with coil embolization.

Beta-blockers and cirrhosis: Striking the right balance

Decompensated cirrhosis is associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality. Variceal hemorrhage (VH) further increases the risk of mortality, and of future variceal bleed events. Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are effective therapy for primary and secondary prophylaxis of VH and have become the cornerstone of pharmacologic therapy in cirrhosis. Beta-blockers are associated with reduced overall mortality and GI-bleeding related mortality in patients with decompensated cirrhosis; they may also confer hemodynamically independent beneficial effects. Long-term treatment with beta-blockers may improve decompensation-free survival in compensated cirrhosis with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). Carvedilol more effectively lowers the hepatic vein portal gradient than traditional NSBBs and has been shown to improve survival in compensated cirrhosis. Treatment goals in compensated cirrhosis with CSPH should focus on early utilization of beta-blockers to prevent decompensation and reduce mortality.

Real-world comparison of terlipressin vs. octreotide as an adjuvant treatment in the management of variceal bleeding

Variceal bleeding is a major complication and the leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of terlipressin vs octreotide as an adjuvant to endoscopic management of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding in a real-time scenario. We reviewed the medical records of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding from January 2005 to December 2020 at our tertiary care Aga Khan University Hospital. Mortality was assessed after 6 weeks. A total of 842 patients with variceal bleed were evaluated. 624 patients (74.1%) and 218 patients (25.9%) received Terlipressin and Octreotide respectively. On multiple regression analysis, cardiac events during hospital stay (OR: 11.22), presence of Porto-systemic encephalopathy (OR: 3.79), and elevated bilirubin levels at the time of presentation were found to be independent risk factors for increased six weeks mortality. Moreover, cardiac events during hospital stay (OR: 3.26), Porto-systemic encephalopathy at presentation (OR: 3.06), and octreotide administration (OR: 1.80) were identified as independent risk factors for increased length of hospital stay. Terlipressin and Octreotide have similar outcomes in terms of control of bleeding, hospital stay, mortality, and side effects when used as adjuvant therapy for the management of variceal bleeding.

Influence of subcutaneous adipose tissue index on prognosis in cirrhotic patients following endoscopic therapy: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The relation of adipose tissue depletion with prognostic outcome of variceal bleeding among cirrhotic patients is still inconclusive. The present work explored whether adipose tissue, which was measured based on computed tomography (CT), was valuable for analyzing rebleeding and mortality among patients with variceal bleeding who had undergone endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

The study encompassed cirrhotic patients who underwent endoscopic therapy to prevent variceal rebleeding between January 2016 and October 2022. The L3-level CT images were obtained. Besides, impacts of subcutaneous adipose tissue index (SATI), visceral adipose tissue index (VATI), as well as total adipose tissue index (TATI) on rebleeding and mortality among cirrhotic patients following endoscopic therapy were examined.

RESULTS

In this work, our median follow-up period was 31 months. Among those adipose tissue indexes, only SATI exhibited an independent relation to higher rebleeding (HR 0.981, 95% CI, 0.971-0.991, p < 0.001) and mortality (HR 0.965, 95% CI, 0.944-0.986, p = 0.001) risks. Upon multivariate Cox regression, low SATI (male < 30.15 cm2/m2, female < 39.82 cm2/m2) was independently linked to higher rebleeding risk (HR 2.511, 95% CI, 1.604-3.932, p < 0.001) and increased mortality risk (HR 3.422, 95% CI, 1.489-7.864, p = 0.004) after adjusting for other predictors. Furthermore, subgroups were created based on using nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs), demonstrating that quantitatively assessing SATI exerts a vital role in evaluating rebleeding incidence in patients with or without NSBB therapy.

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the potential of quantifying SATI as a means for achieving a more accurate risk classification for individual patients and identifying patients that can gain more benefits from nutritional intervention.

Carvedilol Achieves Higher Hemodynamic Response and Lower Rebleeding Rates Than Propranolol in Secondary Prophylaxis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Carvedilol induces stronger decreases in hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) than conventional nonselective β-blockers (ie, propranolol). Limited data exist on the efficacy of carvedilol in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Patients undergoing paired HVPG measurements for guiding secondary prophylaxis with either carvedilol or propranolol were included in this retrospective analysis. All patients also underwent band ligation. Changes in HVPG and systemic hemodynamics were compared between the 2 groups. Long-term follow-up data on rebleeding, acute kidney injury, nonbleeding decompensation, and liver-related death were analyzed applying competing risk regression.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients (carvedilol/propranolol, n = 45/42) were included in our study. The median baseline HVPG was 21 mm Hg (interquartile range, 18-24 mm Hg), and 39.1%/48.3%/12.6% had Child-Turcotte-Pugh A/B/C cirrhosis, respectively. Upon nonselective β-blocker initiation, HVPG decreased more strongly in carvedilol users (median relative decrease, -20% [interquartile range: -29% to -10%] vs -11% [-22% to -5%] for propranolol; P = .027), who also achieved chronic HVPG response more often (53.3% vs 28.6%; P = .034). Cumulative incidences for rebleeding (Gray test, P = .027) and liver-related death (P = .036) were significantly lower in patients taking carvedilol compared with propranolol. Notably, ascites development/worsening also was observed less commonly in carvedilol patients (P = .012). Meanwhile, acute kidney injury rates did not differ between the 2 groups (P = .255). Stratifying patients by HVPG response status yielded similar results. The prognostic value of carvedilol intake was confirmed in competing risk regression models.

CONCLUSIONS

Carvedilol induces more marked reductions in HVPG than propranolol in secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and thus is associated with lower rates of rebleeding, liver-related death, and further nonbleeding decompensation.

Big data and variceal rebleeding prediction in cirrhosis patients

Big data has convincing merits in developing risk stratification strategies for diseases. The 6 “V”s of big data, namely, volume, velocity, variety, veracity, value, and variability, have shown promise for real-world scenarios. Big data can be applied to analyze health data and advance research in preclinical biology, medicine, and especially disease initiation, development, and control. A study design comprises data selection, inclusion and exclusion criteria, standard confirmation and cohort establishment, follow-up strategy, and events of interest. The development and efficiency verification of a prognosis model consists of deciding the data source, taking previous models as references while selecting candidate predictors, assessing model performance, choosing appropriate statistical methods, and model optimization. The model should be able to inform disease development and outcomes, such as predicting variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis. Our work has merits beyond those of other colleagues with respect to cirrhosis patient screening and data source regarding variceal bleeding.

Trends in Hospitalizations of Esophageal Varices From 2011 to 2018: A United States Nationwide Study

Background

Prevalence of gastroesophageal varices is around 50% of patients with cirrhosis. In compensated cirrhosis they are present in 30-40%. Progression from small to large varices occurs at rate of 10-12% annually. That percentage increases significantly in decompensated liver cirrhosis with gastroesophageal varices found in 85% of patients. Variceal hemorrhage occurs at a rate around 10-15% per year. The outcome of variceal hemorrhage depends on the severity of liver disease, size of varices, and presence of stigmata of recent bleeding (red whale sign). Six-week mortality of variceal hemorrhage ranges between 15% and 25%. Without treatment, variceal hemorrhage tends to recur in 60% of patients within 1 - 2 years. The aim of the study was to assess demographics of esophageal varices with and without bleeding, geographic distribution, comorbidities, outcomes, main payers, and cost of hospitalizations.

Methods

The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from year 2011 to 2018 was used. Patients who had a primary diagnosis of esophageal varices with or without bleeding were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes (456.0 for esophageal varices with bleeding, and 456.1 for esophageal varices without bleeding), and International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes (I85.01 for esophageal varices with bleeding, and I85.00 for esophageal varices without bleeding) in the first two discharge diagnoses. The propensity score to calculate the inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust between the differences of the compared groups was implemented. Two groups were compared in terms of their hospitalization outcomes, including LOS, hospital charges, hospital mortality, and disposition.

Results

A total of 322,761 patients were admitted with esophageal varices between 2011 and 2018, with 236,802 (73.6%) had bleeding esophageal varices and 85,959 (26.4%) had nonbleeding esophageal varices. The majority of the patients from both groups were white (66%), covered with Medicare (38% in the esophageal varices with bleeding vs. 41% in the nonbleeding group). There was a steady increase of patients admitted with nonbleeding esophageal varices. Most common comorbidities were liver diseases, alcohol abuse, uncomplicated hypertension and depression in both groups. There were no significant changes in OLS over the years in both groups, but there was a significant increase in hospital charges, especially in the patients with bleeding esophageal varices starting in 2015, and no change in mortality throughout the years. Regarding hospital disposition, there was a notable decline in rehab discharge in the bleeding esophageal varices group.

Conclusions

Esophageal varices with and without bleeding have been steadily increasing since the beginning of this century. This may result in a substantial impact on increasing health care costs and utilization due to acute variceal hemorrhage. Odds of death, transfer to urban hospital, and transfer to visiting nursing assistance remained unchanged.

Band Ligation Can Be Used to Treat Barrett's Esophagus and Concurrent Esophageal Varices: A Case Series

BACKGROUND

Patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal varices present a unique management dilemma. Endoscopic ablation and endoscopic resection are not suitable treatment options due to bleeding risk. Data are limited on successful eradication of BE and esophageal varices utilizing band ligation.

AIMS

To assess the outcomes of patients with BE and esophageal varices treated with banding.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients with BE and esophageal varices who were treated with band ligation.

RESULTS

A total of eight patients were included in the case series. In all eight cases, BE and esophageal varices were successfully treated with band ligation alone. There were no bleeding, perforation or infectious complications in any patients undergoing banding for treatment of BE. Four patients had biopsy-proven dysplasia prior to treatment with band ligation. After band ligation, the 2 of 4 dysplastic cases that had repeat biopsies showed histologic resolution of the dysplasia. All patients who received banding for BE were followed at least yearly except for one patient lost to follow up. No interval esophageal cancers were reported in any patients with BE that were banded.

CONCLUSIONS

Band ligation was used to treat BE pathology in eight patients with esophageal varices. Treatment of dysplasia through this method yielded negative biopsies both for dysplasia and BE on repeat endoscopy. This case series highlights the value of utilizing band ligation to address the management dilemma of BE in the context of esophageal varices.

Liver stiffness-spleen diameter to platelet ratio score (LSPS model) predicts variceal rebleeding for cirrhotic patients

PURPOSE

The liver stiffness- spleen diameter to platelet ratio score (LSPS model) can identify a high risk of decompensated events in cirrhotic patients. We aimed to evaluate the value of the LSPS model as a risk stratification strategy in the secondary prevention for cirrhotic patients with esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding (EGVB).

METHODS

Consecutive EGVB patients who underwent liver stiffness measurement by acoustic radiation force impulse, platelet count and ultrasonography were enrolled between January 2013 and December 2019. We calculated the LSPS of all patients and followed up for over 2 years. The primary outcome was rebleeding. Transplant-free survival and overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE) were the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 131 patients were analyzed. The median value of the LSPS model is 0.1879. We developed risk stratification based on the LSPS model and divided the patients into two groups: the high-LSPS (LSPS > 0.1879) group and the low-LSPS (LSPS ≤ 0.1879) group. Sixty-two (47.33%) patients suffered rebleeding, in which there were 21 (31.92%) patients with low LSPS and 41 (63.08%) patients with high LSPS (hazard ratio 2.883; 95% confidence interval, 1.723-4.822, P  < 0.001). For the whole cohort, the rates of transplant-free survival and OHE were consistently similar between the two groups at 2 years.

CONCLUSION

The LSPS is a reliable, noninvasive method for the detection of a high risk of rebleeding for the secondary prevention of EGVB.

Review article: controversies surrounding the use of carvedilol and other beta blockers in the management of portal hypertension and cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Advanced chronic liver disease is an increasing cause of premature morbidity and mortality in the UK. Portal hypertension is the primary driver of decompensation, including the development of ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and variceal haemorrhage. Non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) reduce portal pressure and are well established in the prevention of variceal haemorrhage. Carvedilol, a newer NSBB, is more effective at reducing portal pressure due to additional α-adrenergic blockade and has additional anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic effects.

AIM

To summarise the available evidence on the use of beta blockers, specifically carvedilol, in cirrhosis, focussing on when and why to start METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed for relevant publications.

RESULTS

International guidelines advise the use of NSBB in primary prophylaxis against variceal haemorrhage in those with high-risk varices, with substantial evidence of efficacy comparable with endoscopic band ligation (EBL). NSBB are also well established in secondary prophylaxis, in combination with EBL. More controversial is their use in patients without large varices, but with clinically significant portal hypertension. However, there is gathering evidence that NSBB, particularly carvedilol, reduce the risk of decompensation and improve survival. While caution is advised in patients with advanced cirrhosis and refractory ascites, recent evidence suggests that NSBB can continue to be used safely, and that premature discontinuation may be detrimental.

CONCLUSIONS

With increasing evidence of benefit independent of variceal bleeding, namely retardation of decompensation and improvement in survival, it is time to consider whether carvedilol should be offered to all patients with advanced chronic liver disease.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for portal hypertension: 30 years experience from China

Liver diseases are a major cause of illness and death worldwide. In China, liver diseases, primarily viral hepatitis, affect approximately 300 million people, thus having a major impact on the global burden of liver diseases. Portal hypertension is the most severe complication of chronic liver diseases, including ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and bleeding from gastroesophageal varices. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) represents a very effective treatment of these complications. Since its introduction 30 years ago in China, the use of TIPS has evolved and has played an increasingly important role in the management of the complications of portal hypertension. This review will focus on the history, current application and management of complications of TIPS in China.

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.

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.

The role of a novel self-expanding metal stent in variceal bleeding: a multicenter Australian and New Zealand experience

Background and study aims  Refractory variceal bleeding is associated with high mortality in patients with chronic liver disease. A fully-covered self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) has been reported to have excellent rates of technical success and initial bleeding control; however, studies to date are small and limited to Europe and Asia. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this SEMS for control of refractory variceal bleeding (VB). Patients and methods  A retrospective analysis was undertaken of all patients who received the SX-ELLA Danis SEMS for management of VB at 9 tertiary centers across Australia and New Zealand. A total of 32 SEMS had been deployed in 30 patients (median age 53.3). Results  Technical success of SEMS placement was achieved in 100 % of cases, resulting in immediate control of bleeding across 31 of 32 cases (96.9 %). Re-bleeding with SEMS in situ occurred in three of 32 cases (9.4 %). Mean SEMS in-dwelling time was 6.4 days. Delayed SEMS migration occurred in 6.3 % of cases. Interventional radiological therapy for management of varices within 6 weeks was performed in 12 of 30 patients (40 %). Death with SEMS in situ occurred in seven of 30 patients (23.3 %). Seven-day bleeding-related mortality was 16.7 %, 14-day mortality 23.3 %, and 6-week mortality 33.3 %. Three of 30 patients (10 %) received orthotopic liver transplantation following SEMS insertion, including two patients within 6 weeks. Conclusions  SX-Danis Ella SEMS is highly effective for immediate control of refractory VB and bridging to definitive therapy because it has excellent technical success rates, appears to be relatively easy to use, and has low rates of serious adverse events.

Management of portal hypertensive upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Report of the Coorg Consensus workshop of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology Task Force on Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Portal hypertensive bleeding is a major complication of portal hypertension (PHT) with high morbidity and mortality. A lot of advances have been made in our understanding of screening, risk stratification, and management strategies for portal hypertensive bleeding including acute variceal bleeding leading to improved overall outcomes in patients with PHT. A number of guidelines on variceal bleeding have been published by various societies in the past few years. The Indian Society of Gastroenterology (ISG) Task Force on Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) felt that it was necessary to bring out a standard practice guidance document for the use of Indian health care providers especially physicians, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists. For this purpose, an expert group meeting was convened by the ISG Task Force to deliberate on this matter and write a consensus guidance document for Indian practice. The delegates including gastroenterologists, hepatologists, radiologists, and surgeons from different parts of the country participated in the consensus development meeting at Coorg in 2018. A core group was constituted which reviewed all published literature on portal hypertensive UGIB with special reference to the Indian scenario and prepared unambiguous statements on different aspects for voting and consensus in the whole group. This consensus was produced through a modified Delphi process and reflects our current understanding and recommendations for the diagnosis and management of portal hypertensive UGIB in Indians. Intended for use by the health care providers especially gastroenterologists and hepatologists, these consensus statements provide an evidence-based approach to risk stratification, diagnosis, and management of patients with portal hypertensive bleeding.

Factors associated with bleeding after endoscopic variceal ligation in children

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is a widely accepted treatment for esophagogastric varices in patients with portal hypertension (PHT). It is used for urgent treatment and prophylactic treatment of esophagogastric varices in pediatric as well as adult patients. However, major life-threatening adverse events such as early rebleeding can occur. Although early rebleeding after EVL among children and adolescents has been reported, the risk factors remain obscure. This study evaluated the risk factors for early rebleeding after EVL in children and adolescents.

METHODS

The subjects were children and adolescents (<18 years) with PHT who underwent EVL for esophagogastric varices. Early rebleeding was defined as hematemesis, active bleeding, or blood retention in the stomach, confirmed by esophagogastroduodenoscopy from 2 h to 5 days after EVL.

RESULTS

A total of 50 EVL sessions on 22 patients were eligible for this study. There were four episodes of early rebleeding. No other major adverse event has occurred. Multivariate analysis showed that EVL implemented at cardiac varices just below the esophagogastric junction (EGJ), within 5 mm from the EGJ, is the independent factor for a higher risk of early rebleeding: odds ratio 18.2 (95% confidence interval: 1.40-237.0), P = 0.02.

CONCLUSIONS

Children and adolescents who undergo EVL for cardiac varices just below the EGJ have a higher risk of early rebleeding than those who do not.

An Update on the Management of Esophageal Variceal Hemorrhage

Content available: Author Audio Recording.

Efficacy and Safety of Treatments for Patients With Portal Hypertension and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims: Viral hepatitis are one of the main causes of liver cirrhosis. The treatment of portal hypertension caused by liver cirrhosis is difficult and diverse, and the therapeutic effect is unknown. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of treatments for patients with portal hypertension and cirrhosis, including a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), endoscopic therapy, surgical therapy and medications. Methods: Eligible articles were searched for in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases from their inception until June 2020. Using the "gemtc-0.8.4" package in R v.3.6.3 software and the Just Another Gibbs Sampler v.4.2.0 program, network meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model within a Bayesian framework. The odds ratios for all-cause rebleeding, bleeding-related mortality, overall survival (OS), treatment failure and hepatic encephalopathy were determined within the Bayesian framework. Results: Forty randomized controlled trials were identified, including 4,006 adult patients and nine treatment strategies. Our results showed that distal splenorenal shunt and TIPS provided the best control of hemorrhage. Endoscopic variceal ligation with medication resulted in the highest OS rate. Medication alone resulted in poor OS and treatment failure. Conclusions: We performed a systematic comparison of diverse treatments for cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Our meta-analysis indicated that a TIPS and distal splenorenal shunt resulted in lower rates of rebleeding than did other therapies. Furthermore, drugs are more suitable for combination therapy than monotherapy.

Portal Hypertension and Ascites: Patient-and Population-centered Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF)

Portal hypertension and ascites are two crucial events in the natural history of liver cirrhosis, whose appearance marks a downward shift in the prognosis of the disease. Over the years, several international and national societies have issued clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of portal hypertension and ascites. The present document addresses the needs of an updated guidance on the clinical management of these conditions. Accordingly, the AISF Governing Board appointed a multi-disciplinary committee of experts for drafting an update of the most recent EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines. The aim of this work was to adapt the EASL recommendations to national regulations and resources, local circumstances and settings, infrastructure, and cost/benefit strategies to avoid duplication of efforts and optimize resource utilization. The committee defined the objectives, the key issues and retrieved the relevant evidence by performing a systematic review of the literature. Finally, the committee members (chosen on the basis of their specific expertise) identified the guidelines' key questions and developed them following the PICO format (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes). For each of the PICO questions, the systematic review of the literature was made on the most important scientific databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Embase).

Recent Advances in the Management of Acute Variceal Hemorrhage

Gastrointestinal bleeding is one of the most relevant causes of death in patients with cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension, with gastroesophageal varices being the most frequent source of hemorrhage. Despite survival has improved thanks to the standardization on medical treatment aiming to decrease portal hypertension and prevent infections, mortality remains significant. In this review, our goal is to discuss the most recent advances in the management of esophageal variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis with specific attention to the treatment algorithms involving the use of indirect measurement of portal pressure (HVPG) and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), which aim to further reduce mortality in high-risk patients after acute variceal hemorrhage and in the setting of secondary prophylaxis.

Step by Step: Managing the Complications of Cirrhosis

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis is the 11th leading cause of death in the United States. Common causes of chronic liver disease include alcohol, viral hepatitis, and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Inflammation is a critical driver in the progression of liver disease to liver fibrosis and ultimately cirrhosis. While the severity of chronic liver disease extends over a continuum, the management is more easily differentiated between compensated and decompensated cirrhosis. In this review, we discuss pathophysiology, clinical features and management of common complications of liver cirrhosis based on literature review and the current clinical practice guidelines of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).

Prevention of Variceal Bleeding and Rebleeding by Nonselective Beta-Blockers: A Tailored Approach

Nonselective beta-blockers represent the mainstay of medical therapy in the prophylaxis of variceal bleeding and rebleeding in patients with portal hypertension. Their efficacy has been demonstrated by numerous trials; however, there exist safety concerns in advanced disease, such as in patients with refractory ascites. Importantly, nonselective beta-blockers also exert nonhemodynamic beneficial effects that may contribute to a prolonged decompensation-free survival, as recently shown in the PREDESCI trial. This review summarizes the current evidence on nonselective beta-blocker therapy and proposes a tailored, patient-centered approach for the use of nonselective beta-blockers in patients with portal hypertension.

Partial splenic embolization combined with endoscopic therapies and NSBB decreases the variceal rebleeding rate in cirrhosis patients with hypersplenism: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background

Global research on endoscopic therapies in combination with partial splenic embolization (PSE) for variceal hemorrhage (VH) is limited. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopy plus PSE (EP) treatment in comparison to endoscopic (E) treatment for the secondary prophylaxis of VH in cirrhosis patients with hypersplenism.

Methods

Cirrhosis patients with hypersplenism (platelet count < 100, 000/µL) and those who had recovered from an episode of VH were enrolled in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. The participants were randomly assigned into EP and E groups in a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was variceal rebleeding, and the secondary endpoints were severe variceal recurrence and mortality during the 2-year follow-up. Hematological indices, serum biochemical parameters, and the Child–Pugh score were measured at each time point.

Results

From June 2016 to December 2019, 108 patients were enrolled in the study, among which 102 patients completed the protocol (51 in EP and 51 in E group). The rebleeding rate of the varices was significantly reduced in the EP group compared to that in the E group during the 2 years (16% vs. 31%, p < 0.001). The EP group showed a significantly lower variceal recurrence rate than the E group (22% vs. 67%, p < 0.001). The COX proportional hazard models revealed that grouping was an independent predictor for variceal rebleeding (H = 0.122, 95% CI 0.055–0.270, p < 0.001) and variceal recurrence (hazard ratio, H = 0.160, 95% CI 0.077–0.332, p < 0.001). The peripheral blood cell count, Child–Pugh class/score, albumin concentration, and coagulation function in the EP group improved significantly compared to the values observed in the E group at any time point (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The EP treatment was more effective in preventing variceal rebleeding and variceal recurrence than the conventional E treatment during the secondary prophylaxis of VH in cirrhosis patients with hypersplenism. Furthermore, the EP treatment could significantly increase the peripheral blood cell count and albumin concentration and also improved the coagulation function and the Child–Pugh score.

Clinical trials registration

Trial registration number ClincialTrials.gov: NCT02778425. The URL of the clinical trial: https://clinicaltrials.gov/

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12072-021-10155-0.

Keeping Patients with End-Stage Liver Disease Alive While Awaiting Transplant: Management of Complications of Portal Hypertension

Complications of portal hypertension such as gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage, ascites, and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, as well as pulmonary complications, are often responsible for diminished quality of life, excess morbidity and mortality, increased health care resource use and expenditure, and dropout from the liver transplant (LT) waiting list. Therefore, the care of LT candidates on the waiting list must be centered on anticipation and prompt intervention for these complications.

Surgical, Interventional, and Medical Palliation of Portal Hypertension

Seriously ill surgical patients require complex and integrated surgical, interventional, and medical management to balance the risks and benefits that complicate decision-making. Palliative care principles can aid surgeons in these cases. To illustrate this, we describe a scenario of a patient with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus causing portal hypertension. We discuss options for managing the sequelae of portal hypertension, including varices and ascites. We explore the interventional and surgical options for mitigating or palliating the underlying portal hypertension. Advances in interventional radiological techniques can facilitate the creation of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPSs), even with extensive portal vein thrombus. If interventional approaches are not possible, surgical shunts can be considered but carry significant risks that must be weighed against the benefits. To communicate effectively, we outline key steps to breaking bad news. To make shared decisions in challenging cases, we describe how to elicit a patient's hopes, expectations, concerns, and preferences; how to synthesize goals of care from these stated values; and how to use those goals to guide decision-making.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Managing liver cirrhotic complications: Overview of esophageal and gastric varices

Managing liver cirrhosis in clinical practice is still a challenging problem as its progression is associated with serious complications, such as variceal bleeding that may increase mortality. Portal hypertension (PH) is the main key for the development of liver cirrhosis complications. Portal pressure above 10 mmHg, termed as clinically significant portal hypertension, is associated with formation of varices; meanwhile, portal pressure above 12 mmHg is associated with variceal bleeding. Hepatic vein pressure gradient measurement and esophagogastroduodenoscopy remain the gold standard for assessing portal pressure and detecting varices. Recently, non-invasive methods have been studied for evaluation of portal pressure and varices detection in liver cirrhotic patients. Various guidelines have been published for clinicians' guidance in the management of esophagogastric varices which aims to prevent development of varices, acute variceal bleeding, and variceal rebleeding. This writing provides a comprehensive review on development of PH and varices in liver cirrhosis patients and its management based on current international guidelines and real experience in Indonesia.

Early rebleeding increases mortality of variecal bleeders on secondary prophylaxis with β-blockers and ligation

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Despite secondary-prophylaxis with β-blockers and endoscopic-variceal-ligation rebleeding is frequent, particularly within the first-6-weeks. Early-rebleeding may have greater impact on death-risk than late rebleeding, which may affect therapy. We assessed whether the influence of rebleeding on long-term survival of patients on secondary-prophylaxis is greater in patients with early-rebleeding.

METHODS

369 patients with cirrhosis were consecutively included once recovered from first variceal-bleeding. The impact of rebleeding on survival was investigated according to whether it occurred within 6-weeks (early-rebleeding) or later (late-rebleeding).

RESULTS

During 46-months of follow-up (IQR: 14-61), 45 patients (12%) had early-rebleeding, 74(20%) had late-rebleeding and 250(68%) had not rebleeding. Mortality risk was higher in early-rebleeding group vs. late-rebleeding (HR = 0.476, 95%CI = 0.318-0.712, p < 0.001) and was similar in late-rebleeding group vs. no-rebleeding (HR = 0.902, 95%CI = 0.749-1.086, p = 0.271). Adjusting for baseline risk-factors, early-rebleeding was independently associated with mortality-risk (HR = 1.58, 95%CI = 1.02-2.45; p = 0.04). Child-Pugh&MELD scores improved at 3rd-4th-week only in patients without early-rebleeding (p < 0.05). Presence of ascites or encephalopathy, MELD-score>12 and HVPG>20 mmHg identified patients at risk of early-rebleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with early-rebleeding have higher risk of death than patients without rebleeding and even than those rebleeding later. Our results suggest that patients at risk of early rebleeding might benefit from preemptive therapies such as early-TIPS.

Comparison of the effectiveness of 11 mainstay treatments for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis: A network meta-analysis

The purpose of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), endoscopic options, medications and mainstay combination therapies for patients with cirrhosis who have had at least one episode of variceal haemorrhage. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases, as well as the reference lists of relevant articles, were searched to identify eligible studies. P-scores, that were based solely on the point estimates and standard errors of the network estimates, were performed to rank all treatments, on a scale from 0 (worst) to 1 (best). The odds ratio (OR) was determined to assess effects on mortality, treatment failure and bleeding from gastroesophageal ulcers. A total of 43 randomized controlled trials comprising 3,787 adult patients were included. In total, 26 (61%) trials adopted concealed randomization, while most studies did not specify blinding. The drug combination of nadolol and isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) ranked first for lowering risks of overall mortality (P-score=0.8162), mortality due to liver failure (P-score=0.7536) and bleeding from gastroesophageal ulcers (P-score=0.7536). This combination was determined to be superior to endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) alone (OR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.42-0.94) and TIPS alone in reducing overall mortality (OR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.40-0.96). ES was more likely to increase treatment failure compared with TIPS, endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), ES plus EVL, EVL plus nadolol/propranolol plus ISMN and nadolol/propranolol plus ISMN. In conclusion, the present network meta-analysis suggested that for a decreased mortality due to variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis, nadolol plus ISMN may be a preferable choice, while ES is associated with a higher risk of unfavourable treatment outcomes. Further well-controlled studies are required to further elucidate the appropriate treatment options.

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.

Using transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt as the first-line therapy in secondary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This study aims to evaluate and compare the survival and other portal hypertension-related complications of patients with portal pressure gradient (PPG) ≥ 25 mmHg using transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) as the first-line and second-line therapies in secondary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage.

METHODS

Fifty patients diagnosed with liver cirrhosis were enrolled in this retrospective study, with 35 of whom received TIPS as the first-line therapy in secondary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage and 15 of whom as second-line treatment. We observed and analyzed the survival, occurrence of variceal rebleeding and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) of patients in the two groups during the follow up.

RESULTS

The technical success rate was 100%. In a median follow-up time of 12 (1-37) and 15 (2-27) months, respectively, significant statistical difference was observed between the first-line group and the second-line group concerning cumulative survival rate (94.3% vs 66.7%, log-rank P = 0.01). But that was not the case when it comes to the cumulative rate of variceal rebleeding (8.6% vs 26.7%, log-rank P = 0.164) and HE (22.9% vs 20.0%, log-rank P = 0.793). And multivariate analysis indicated that group assignment (hazard ratio = 8.250, 95% confidence interval = 1.383-49.213, P = 0.021) was the only predictor of survival. Interestingly, we found that spleen diameter (hazard ratio = 0.578, 95% confidence interval = 0.393-0.849, P = 0.005) could be regarded as independent predictor of the occurrence of HE.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with PPG ≥ 25 mmHg who have recovered from an episode of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage, utilizing TIPS as the first-line therapy to prevent rebleeding is demonstrated effective in improving the survival and therefore should be recommended to a wider range of clinical practice.

Lower 90-day Hospital Readmission Rates for Esophageal Variceal Bleeding After TIPS: A Nationwide Linked Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Hospital readmission rates following a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) insertion after an episode of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) has not been well studied. We aimed to address this gap in knowledge on a population level.

METHODS

The Nationwide Readmission Database (NRD) was used to study the readmission rates for patients with decompensated cirrhosis who had a TIPS insertion performed for EVB. The NRD is a national database that tracks patients longitudinally for hospital readmissions. A propensity score matching model was created to match patients who received TIPS with those who did not.

RESULTS

A total of 42,679,001 hospital admissions from the 2012 to 2014 NRD sample were analyzed. There were 33,934 patients with EVB who met inclusion criteria for the study, of whom, 1527 (4.5%) received TIPS after EVB and were matched with 1527 patients with EVB who did not undergo TIPS. With a uniform follow-up of 3 months, patients with TIPS were less likely to be readmitted to hospital with a recurrent EVB [odds ratio (OR): 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.24-0.47, P<0.01], although were more likely to be readmitted with hepatic encephalopathy (OR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.31-2.11, P<0.01). At 3 months, there was no difference in all cause hospital readmission rate between the 2 groups (OR: 38.8%; 95% CI: 38.1-44.9 TIPS vs. OR: 41.5%; 95% CI: 34.1-43.3 non-TIPS: P=0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large nationally representative study, TIPS insertion after an episode of EVB was associated with a significantly lower risk of 3-month readmission for recurrent EVB compared with patients who did not receive TIPS. Although those receiving TIPS had a higher rate of hepatic encephalopathy the overall readmission remained unchanged.

Use of Nonselective β-Blockers in Patients With End-Stage Liver Disease and Select Complications

Objective: To review the literature and recommendations for nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) in the setting of variceal bleeding prophylaxis and decompensated liver disease. Data Sources: Literature search of MEDLINE was performed (1988 to October 2019) using the following search terms: cirrhosis, advanced cirrhosis, β-blocker, decompensation, prophylaxis. Abstracts, peer-reviewed publications, clinical practice guidelines, and product monographs were reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Relevant English language studies and those conducted in humans were considered for analysis and inclusion. Data Synthesis: Evidence that suggests that NSBBs are harmful in advanced cirrhosis is overshadowed by confounding variables and small patient populations. The majority of the available evidence suggests neutral or beneficial effects on mortality with continuation of NSBBs despite liver disease progression. Based on the available literature, guidelines, and expert consensuses, NSBBs can be considered within this patient population and may have a positive impact on the majority of these patients. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review summarizes current place in therapy for NSBBs in the setting of cirrhosis and variceal bleeding prophylaxis. It also includes a discussion of the literature for use of NSBBs within the setting of different acute decompensations in which the data and recommendations for use are less clear. Conclusions: Recent evidence shows neutral or positive results for NSBB use in particular decompensation subgroups, which suggests that NSBBs can be used cautiously with close monitoring in patients with advanced cirrhosis. Questions still remain regarding optimal agent and dose and whether agents can be safely restarted after an acute decompensation episode.

Varices: Esophageal, Gastric, and Rectal

Gastrointestinal varices are associated with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Variceal hemorrhage is a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality, with esophageal and gastric varices the most common source and rectal varices a much less common cause of severe gastrointestinal bleeding. The goals of managing variceal hemorrhage are control of active bleeding and prevention of rebleeding. This article focuses on reviewing the current management strategies, including optimal medical, endoscopic, and angiographic interventions and their clinical outcomes to achieve these goals. Evidence based discussion is used with current references as much as possible.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INVASIVE PROCEDURES IN PATIENTS WITH DISEASES OF THE LIVER AND BILIARY TRACT: REPORT OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF HEPATOLOGY (SBH), BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY (SOBED) AND BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY (SOBRICE)

Liver and biliary tract diseases are common causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Invasive procedures are usually performed in those patients with hepatobiliary diseases for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Defining proper indications and restraints of commonly used techniques is crucial for proper patient selection, maximizing positive results and limiting complications. In 2018, the Brazilian Society of Hepato-logy (SBH) in cooperation with the Brazilian Society of Interventional Radiology and Endovascular surgery (SOBRICE) and the Brazilian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SOBED) sponsored a joint single-topic meeting on invasive procedures in patients with hepatobiliary diseases. This paper summarizes the proceedings of the aforementioned meeting. It is intended to guide clinicians, gastroenterologists, hepatologists, radiologists, and endoscopists for the proper use of invasive procedures for management of patients with hepatobiliary diseases.