Somatostatin v placebo in bleeding oesophageal varices: randomised trial and meta-analysis

Treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.

Partial splenic embolization is superior to intravenous somatostatin for decreasing portal pressure in cirrhotic patients: a dynamic self-controlled cohort study

AIMS

The efficacy of somatostatin in altering splanchnic hemodynamics in cirrhotic portal hypertension is still controversial. We aimed to establish the dynamic effect of somatostatin on portal pressure in cirrhotic patients and compared its effect with Partial Splenic Embolization (PSE).

METHODS

Eighteen patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension were prospectively recruited. The wedged hepatic venous pressure (WHVP) and free hepatic venous pressure (FHVP) were repeatedly measured at baseline, 1-, 5-, 10- and 20-min after initiating somatostatin infusion. After somatostatin infusion cessation and washout, WHVP and FHVP were measured before and after PSE. The change in all the variables between time points was analyzed.

RESULTS

Decreased hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) 5-min after initiation of infusion was identified compared with baseline level (19.6%; p-value: .042), which was achieved through elevated FHVP (37.5%; p-value: 9.26e - 04). There was no significant decrease in WHVP at any time point during somatostatin infusion. The HVPG (17.4%; p-value: 1.27e - 04) and WHVP (10.4%; p-value: 3.00e - 03) post-PSE significantly decreased compared to the washout level. No significant distribution differences in the number of patients with HVPG decrease by a percentage relative to the baseline level were identified between the 5-min time point and post-PSE.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that somatostatin administration does not decrease WHVP within 20 min at clinically recommended doses. While somatostatin did decrease HVPG, this effect was achieved through increased FHVP, providing a possible explanation for its unclear efficacy. In contrast, PSE decreases both the WHVP and the HVPG.

Blinded interpretation of study results can feasibly and effectively diminish interpretation bias

OBJECTIVE

Controversial and misleading interpretation of data from randomized trials is common. How to avoid misleading interpretation has received little attention. Herein, we describe two applications of an approach that involves blinded interpretation of the results by study investigators.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS

The approach involves developing two interpretations of the results on the basis of a blinded review of the primary outcome data (experimental treatment A compared with control treatment B). One interpretation assumes that A is the experimental intervention and another assumes that A is the control. After agreeing that there will be no further changes, the investigators record their decisions and sign the resulting document. The randomization code is then broken, the correct interpretation chosen, and the manuscript finalized. Review of the document by an external authority before finalization can provide another safeguard against interpretation bias.

RESULTS

We found the blinded preparation of a summary of data interpretation described in this article practical, efficient, and useful.

CONCLUSIONS

Blinded data interpretation may decrease the frequency of misleading data interpretation. Widespread adoption of blinded data interpretation would be greatly facilitated were it added to the minimum set of recommendations outlining proper conduct of randomized controlled trials (eg, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement).

Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Patients with Portal Hypertension

Gastrointestinal bleeding related to portal hypertension is a serious complication in patients with liver cirrhosis. Most patients bleed from esophageal or gastric varices, but bleeding from ectopic varices or portal hypertensive gastropathy is also possible. The management of acute bleeding has changed over the last years. Patients are managed with a combination of endoscopic and pharmacologic treatment. The endoscopic treatment of choice for esophageal variceal bleeding is variceal band ligation. Bleeding from gastric varices is treated by injection with cyanoacrylate. Treatment with vasoactive drugs as well as antibiotic treatment is started before or at the time point of endoscopy. The first-line treatment for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding is nonselective beta blockers. Pharmacologic therapy is recommended for most patients; band ligation is an alternative in patients with contraindications for or intolerability of beta blockers. Treatment options for secondary prophylaxis include variceal band ligation, beta blockers, a combination of nitrates and beta blockers, and combination of band ligation and pharmacologic treatment. A clear superiority of one treatment over the other has not been shown. Bleeding from portal hypertensive gastropathy or ectopic varices is less common. Treatment options include beta blocker therapy, injection therapy, and interventional radiology.

Meta-analysis: vasoactive medications for the management of acute variceal bleeds

BACKGROUND

Vasoactive medications such as vasopressin, somatostatin and their analogues (terlipressin, vapreotide and octreotide) are commonly used for the treatment of acute variceal bleeding. However, the risks and benefits of these interventions are not well understood.

AIM

To undertake a meta-analysis of the efficacy of vasoactive medications in patients having acute variceal bleeds.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vasopressin, somatostatin and their analogues, administered to patients with acute variceal bleeds were identified based on systematic searches of nine electronic databases and multiple sources of grey literature.

RESULTS

The search identified 3011 citations, and 30 trials with a total of 3111 patients met eligibility criteria. The use of vasoactive agents was associated with a significantly lower risk of 7-day mortality (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.57-0.95; P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality of evidence), and a significant improvement in haemostasis (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.30; P < 0.001; I(2) = 28%; very low quality of evidence), lower transfusion requirements (pooled mean difference -0.70 units of blood transfused, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.38; P < 0.001; I(2) = 82%; moderate quality of evidence), and a shorter duration of hospitalisation (pooled mean difference -0.71 days; 95% CI -1.23 to -0.19; P = 0.007; I(2) = 0%; low quality of evidence). Studies comparing different vasoactive agents did not show a difference in efficacy, although the quality of evidence was very low.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of vasoactive agents was associated with a significantly lower risk of acute all-cause mortality and transfusion requirements, and improved control of bleeding and shorter hospital stay. Studies comparing different vasoactive medications failed to demonstrate a difference in efficacy.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Management of varices in cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

Acute variceal bleeding is a medical emergency and one of the main causes of mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Timely and effective treatment of the acute bleeding episode results in increased survival, and appropriate prophylactic treatment can prevent bleeding or rebleeding from varices.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss the prevention of development and growth of varices, the primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding, the treatment of acute bleeding, and the management of gastric varices. We systematically reviewed studies, without time limits, identified through Medline and searches of reference lists, and provide an overview of the evidence underlying the -treatment options in the management of varices in cirrhosis.

EXPERT OPINION

The management of variceal hemorrhage relies on nonspecific interventions (e.g., adequate fluid resuscitation, airway protection) and on specific interventions. These are routine prophylactic antibiotics, vasoactive drugs and endoscopic treatment. Procedures such as the placement of a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube or a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) can be lifesaving. The primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding is based on nonselective beta-blockers and endoscopy, even though TIPS or, less frequently, surgery have a role in selected cases.

Acute esophageal variceal bleeding: Current strategies and new perspectives

Management of acute variceal bleeding has greatly improved over recent years. Available data indicates that general management of the bleeding cirrhotic patient by an experienced multidisciplinary team plays a major role in the final outcome of this complication. It is currently recommended to combine pharmacological and endoscopic therapies for the initial treatment of the acute bleeding. Vasoactive drugs (preferable somatostatin or terlipressin) should be started as soon as a variceal bleeding is suspected (ideally during transfer to hospital) and maintained afterwards for 2-5 d. After stabilizing the patient with cautious fluid and blood support, an emergency diagnostic endoscopy should be done and, as soon as a skilled endoscopist is available, an endoscopic variceal treatment (ligation as first choice, sclerotherapy if endoscopic variceal ligation not feasible) should be performed. Antibiotic prophylaxis must be regarded as an integral part of the treatment of acute variceal bleeding and should be started at admission and maintained for at least 7 d. In case of failure to control the acute bleeding, rescue therapies should be immediately started. Shunt therapies (especially transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt) are very effective at controlling treatment failures after an acute variceal bleeding. Therapeutic developments and increasing knowledge in the prognosis of this complication may allow optimization of the management strategy by adapting the different treatments to the expected risk of complications for each patient in the near future. Theoretically, this approach would allow the initiation of early aggressive treatments in high-risk patients and spare low-risk individuals unnecessary procedures. Current research efforts will hopefully clarify this hypothesis and help to further improve the outcomes of the severe complication of cirrhosis.

Emergency sclerotherapy versus vasoactive drugs for bleeding oesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND

Emergency sclerotherapy is still widely used as a first line therapy for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, particularly when banding ligation is not available or feasible. However, pharmacological treatment may stop bleeding in the majority of these patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of emergency sclerotherapy versus vasoactive drugs for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Search of trials was based on The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded through January 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing sclerotherapy with vasoactive drugs (vasopressin (with or without nitroglycerin), terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide) for acute variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Outcome measures were failure to control bleeding, five-day treatment failure, rebleeding, mortality, number of blood transfusions, and adverse events. Data were analysed by a random-effects model according to the vasoactive treatment. Sensitivity analyses included combined analysis of all the trials irrespective of the vasoactive drug, type of publication, and risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen trials including 1817 patients were identified. Vasoactive drugs were vasopressin (one trial), terlipressin (one trial), somatostatin (five trials), and octreotide (ten trials). No significant differences were found comparing sclerotherapy with each vasoactive drug for any outcome. Combining all the trials irrespective of the vasoactive drug, the risk differences (95% confidence intervals) were failure to control bleeding -0.02 (-0.06 to 0.02), five-day failure rate -0.05 (-0.10 to 0.01), rebleeding 0.01 (-0.03 to 0.05), mortality (17 randomised trials, 1817 patients) -0.02 (-0.06 to 0.02), and transfused blood units (8 randomised trials, 849 patients) (weighted mean difference) -0.24 (-0.54 to 0.07). Adverse events 0.08 (0.03 to 0.14) and serious adverse events 0.05 (0.02 to 0.08) were significantly more frequent with sclerotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing evidence to support the use of emergency sclerotherapy for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis as the first, single treatment when compared with vasoactive drugs. Vasoactive drugs may be safe and effective whenever endoscopic therapy is not promptly available and seems to be associated with less adverse events than emergency sclerotherapy. Other meta-analyses and guidelines advocate that combined vasoactive drugs and endoscopic therapy is superior to either intervention alone.

Multiple-blind: Towards a new blinding protocol for future generations of clinical trials

In this hypothesis we try to suggest a new blinding protocol acting as a gold standard for design and conduction of unbiased clinical trials. All of the following five categories of key trial persons should be blinded to treatment allocation: (a) participants, (b) healthcare providers, (c) data collectors, (d) outcome assessors and (e) data analysts. Furthermore, personnel writing the manuscript should be blinded through submission two drafts of a manuscript, with draft 1 written assuming that group A is the treatment group and draft 2 assuming that group B is the treatment group. Also, double-blind peer review procedure (in which the reviewers' and authors' names and affiliations are not disclosed to one another) should be carried out. Test of the success of blinding should be used. Participants, healthcare providers and data collectors, should be tested for the success of blinding in early stage of the trial and at the end of the trial. For outcome assessors, data analysts, manuscript writers and peer reviewers one test session in the end of their work is enough.

AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to measure the agreement, reliability, construct validity, and feasibility of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We randomly selected 30 systematic reviews from a database. Each was assessed by two reviewers using: (1) the enhanced quality assessment questionnaire (Overview of Quality Assessment Questionnaire [OQAQ]); (2) Sacks' instrument; and (3) our newly developed measurement tool (AMSTAR). We report on reliability (interobserver kappas of the 11 AMSTAR items), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of the sum scores, construct validity (ICCs of the sum scores of AMSTAR compared with those of other instruments), and completion times.

RESULTS

The interrater agreement of the individual items of AMSTAR was substantial with a mean kappa of 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57, 0.83) (range: 0.38-1.0). Kappas recorded for the other instruments were 0.63 (95% CI: 0.38, 0.78) for enhanced OQAQ and 0.40 (95% CI: 0.29, 0.50) for the Sacks' instrument. The ICC of the total score for AMSTAR was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.92) compared with 0.91 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.96) for OQAQ and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.71, 0.94) for the Sacks' instrument. AMSTAR proved easy to apply, each review taking about 15 minutes to complete.

CONCLUSIONS

AMSTAR has good agreement, reliability, construct validity, and feasibility. These findings need confirmation by a broader range of assessors and a more diverse range of reviews.

Somatostatin analogues for acute bleeding oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Somatostatin and its derivatives are sometimes used for emergency treatment of bleeding oesophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis of the liver.

OBJECTIVES

To study whether somatostatin or its analogues improve survival or reduce the need for blood transfusions in patients with bleeding oesophageal varices.

SEARCH STRATEGY

PubMed and The Cochrane Library were searched (November 2007). Reference lists of publications, contacts with authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials comparing somatostatin or analogues with placebo or no treatment in patients suspected of acute or recent bleeding from oesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The outcome measures extracted were: mortality, blood transfusions, use of balloon tamponade, initial haemostasis and rebleeding. Intention-to-treat analyses including all randomised patients were conducted if possible; a random-effects analysis was preferred if there was significant heterogeneity between the trials (P < 0.10). The trials were divided in two groups: trials with a low risk of bias, which had concealed allocation of patients and were double-blind, and other trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials (2588 patients). The drugs did not reduce mortality significantly (relative risk 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.25, for the trials with a low risk of bias, and 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01, for the other trials). Units of blood transfused were 0.7 (0.2 to 1.1) less with drugs in the trials with a low risk of bias and 1.5 (0.9 to 2.0) less in the other trials. Number of patients failing initial haemostasis was reduced, relative risk 0.68 (0.54 to 0.87). Number of patients with rebleeding was not significantly reduced for the trials with a low risk of bias, relative risk 0.84 (0.52 to 1.37) while it was substantially reduced in the other trials, relative risk 0.36 (0.19 to 0.68). Use of balloon tamponade was rarely reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The need for blood transfusions corresponded to one half unit of blood saved per patient. It is doubtful whether this effect is worthwhile. The findings do not suggest a need for further placebo-controlled trials of the type reviewed here. A large placebo controlled trial enrolling thousands of patients is needed if one wishes to rule out the possibility that a worthwhile effect on mortality might have been overlooked.

Pharmacology, clinical efficacy and safety of terlipressin in esophageal varices bleeding, septic shock and hepatorenal syndrome

Terlipressin, a vasopressin agonist, is a commonly used drug with different indications, particularly in patients with end-stage liver disease. As a V(1) receptor agonist, it increases systemic vascular resistance, particularly in the splanchnic area, resulting in a decrease of portal pressure. Besides the approved use for variceal bleeding, terlipressin also has beneficial effects in the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome and norepinephrine-resistant septic shock. In patients with cirrhosis and variceal bleeding, the use of terlipressin reduces the portal vein pressure and decreases the pressure in esophageal varices. This can save lives when skilled endoscopists are not immediately available. Hepatorenal syndrome is associated with vasodilation in the mesenteric circulation with arterial underfilling and consecutive renal vasoconstriction. Restoration of an effective arterial blood volume can be achieved by the combination of terlipressin and volume expansion. In some cases, a success rate of up to 75% is reported. The early use of terlipressin in catecholamine-resistant shock can improve organ perfusion.

Emergency management of bleeding esophageal varices: drugs, bands or sleep?

Variceal bleeding is a severe complication of cirrhosis leading to significant morbidity and mortality. Treatment of acute variceal bleeding has improved dramatically since the era of the mechanical balloon tamponade. These advances include endoscopic band ligation or sclerotherapy, and vasoactive pharmacological options such as somatostatin, octreotide, vasopressin and terlipressin. Evidence from a multitude of clinical trials and meta-analyses comparing endoscopic and pharmacological treatments suggests near equivalence in efficacy for initial hemostasis, mortality and rate of rebleeding. This raises the question of whether on-call gastroenterologists should be performing emergency endoscopic treatment in the middle of the night or start pharmacological treatment and delay endoscopy until optimal patient and working conditions the next morning. The present review analyzes the available comparative data between endoscopic and pharmacological treatment options. Although the literature cannot yet definitively answer the question posed, the authors suggest that delaying endoscopic treatment until the next morning may be the most reasonable practical approach.

Current management of the complications of portal hypertension: variceal bleeding and ascites

Portal hypertension is one of the main consequences of cirrhosis. It results from a combination of increased intrahepatic vascular resistance and increased blood flow through the portal venous system. The condition leads to the formation of portosystemic collateral veins. Esophagogastric varices have the greatest clinical impact, with a risk of bleeding as high as 30% within 2 years of medium or large varices developing. Ascites, another important complication of advanced cirrhosis and severe portal hypertension, is sometimes refractory to treatment and is complicated by spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and hepatorenal syndrome. We describe the pathophysiology of portal hypertension and the current management of its complications, with emphasis on the prophylaxis and treatment of variceal bleeding and ascites.

Pro/con debate: octreotide has an important role in the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding of unknown origin?

Whether it is the primary reason for admission or a complication of critical illness, upper gastrointestinal bleeding is commonly encountered in the intensive care unit. In this setting, in the absence of endoscopy, intensivists generally provide supportive care (transfusion of blood products) and acid suppression (such as proton pump inhibitors). More recently, octreotide (a somatostatin analogue) has been used in such patients. However, its precise role in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding is not necessarily clear and the drug is associated with significant costs. In this issue of Critical Care, two expert teams debate the merits of using octreotide in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Ensayos clínicos aleatorizados (CONSORT)

It has been repeatedly shown that the information supplied in publications of clinical trials is frequently insufficient or inaccurate and that some methodologic problems are associated with exaggerated estimates of the effect of healthcare interventions. To improve the quality of reports of clinical trials, a group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT statement (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), a 22-item checklist (plus flow diagram), that can be used by authors, editors, reviewers, and readers. After publication in 1996, CONSORT was adopted by several journals and editorial groups. In 1999, a second version was drawn up, which was published in 2001. This article presents the Spanish translation of the two elements integrating the revised CONSORT, the flow diagram and the 22-item checklist, and provides a short comment on each of them. Previous publications of the CONSORT statement and other useful resources such as examples of what are considered good communications may be obtained from the CONSORT web site (http://www.consort-statement.org).

Somatostatin analogues for acute bleeding oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Somatostatin and its derivatives are often used for emergency treatment of bleeding oesophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis of the liver.

OBJECTIVES

To study whether somatostatin or analogues improve survival or reduce the need for blood transfusions in patients with bleeding oesophageal varices.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library were searched; last search in Febr 2004. Reference lists of articles, contacted authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials comparing somatostatin or analogues with placebo or no treatment in patients suspected of acute or recent bleeding from oesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The effect variables extracted were: mortality, blood transfusions, use of balloon tamponade, initial haemostasis and rebleeding. Intention-to-treat analyses including all randomised patients were conducted; a random effects analysis was preferred if there was significant heterogeneity between the trials (P < 0.10). The trials were divided in two quality groups; the better trials had concealed allocation of patients and were double-blind.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials (2518 patients). The drugs did not reduce mortality significantly (relative risk 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.24, for the high-quality trials, and 0.79 for low-quality trials). Units of blood transfused were 0.7 (0.3 to 1.2) less with drugs in the high-quality trials and 1.5 (0.9 to 2.0) less in the low-quality trials. Number of patients failing initial haemostasis was reduced, relative risk 0.67 (0.53 to 0.86). Number of patients with rebleeding was not significantly reduced for the high-quality trials, relative risk 0.82 (0.45 to 1.49) while it was substantially reduced in the low-quality trials, relative risk 0.35 (0.18 to 0.67). Use of balloon tamponade was rarely reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effect corresponded to one half unit of blood saved per patient. It is doubtful whether this effect is worthwhile. The findings do not suggest a need for further placebo-controlled studies of the type reviewed here. A large placebo controlled trial enrolling thousands of patients is needed if one wishes to rule out the possibility that a worthwhile effect on mortality may have been overlooked.

Review article: a critical comparison of drug therapies in currently used therapeutic strategies for variceal haemorrhage

Vasoactive drugs are safe and easy to administer, and universal treatment is the first-line approach for all patients with suspected variceal bleeding. There are strong arguments that the combination of vasoactive drugs, started as soon as possible, and endotherapy later on is the best therapeutic option, particularly in cases of ongoing bleeding at the time of endoscopy. The main action of vasoactive drugs is to reduce variceal pressure. This can be achieved by diminishing the variceal blood flow and/or by increasing resistance to variceal blood flow inside the varices. Changes in variceal pressure parallel changes in portal pressure. Drugs for the treatment of variceal bleeding can therefore be assessed by measuring the changes in portal pressure, azygos blood flow and variceal pressure. Vasoactive drugs can be divided into two categories: terlipressin (Glypressin), and somatostatin and its analogues, especially octreotide. Terlipressin significantly reduces portal and variceal pressure and azygos flow, is superior to placebo in the control of variceal haemorrhage and improves mortality. It is beneficial when combined with sclerotherapy. It also has the advantage that it might preserve renal function, one of the most important factors affecting the outcome of cirrhosis. As such, terlipressin is the most potent of the various vasoactive drugs. Somatostatin significantly reduces portal and variceal pressure and azygos flow, is superior to placebo in controlling variceal haemorrhage, and improves the success of sclerotherapy. The effect of octreotide is well established for preventing the increase in portal pressure after a meal (similar to blood in the intestines) though the effect of ocreotide on variceal pressure is controversial.

Somatostatin, somatostatin analogues and other vasoactive drugs in the treatment of bleeding oesophageal varices

Somatostatin and its analogues have been compared with a variety of other treatments for the treatment of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients. Meta-analyses of studies comparing somatostatin or octreotide with vasopressin or terlipressin have shown that somatostatin is somewhat superior to vasopressin and equivalent to terlipressin in controlling bleeding and has significantly fewer side effects; no difference in mortality was observed. Octreotide was somewhat better than vasopressin and terlipressin in controlling bleeding, with similar mortality. Meta-analysis of trials comparing somatostatin or octreotide with endoscopic sclerotherapy shows that both drugs are equivalent to sclerotherapy for bleeding control, early rebleeding and survival. Complications are much less frequent with drug treatment. Nine trials have compared endoscopic therapy with therapeutic regimens combining endoscopic treatment with somatostatin, octreotide or vapreotide. Meta-analysis show that the combined regimens increase the 5 days bleeding control rate of endoscopic treatments by over 20%, although there is no difference in mortality. Comparisons of somatostatin and octreotide with combined regimens of sclerotherapy + somatostatin and sclerotherapy + octreotide have shown that the combined regimens were better than drug treatments alone in controlling bleeding and preventing early rebleeding, while complications were significantly less frequent with drug therapy.

Pharmacological rationale for the use of somatostatin and analogues in portal hypertension

Somatostatin and its analogue octreotide have been used for two decades to treat oesophageal variceal haemorrhage. The drug was introduced because of its capacity to decrease portal venous pressure without major side effects. In clinical trials assessing the efficacy of somatostatin and long-acting analogues in arresting variceal haemorrhage, conflicting results have been obtained. Furthermore, in haemodynamic studies evaluating the effects of somatostatin and analogues in patients with cirrhosis, divergent effects were observed. The main reason for these differences is probably related to different affinities of the drugs for different somatostatin receptor subtypes. The effects of somatostatin and analogues are mediated via five different G-protein coupled receptors (somatostatin receptor subtypes 1-5), which regulate the activity of ion channels (Ca2+, K+, Na+ and Cl-) and enzymes (adenyl cyclase, phospholipase C, phospholipase A2, phosphoinositide 3-kinase and guanylate cyclase) responsible for the synthesis or degradation of intracellular second messengers including cyclic AMP, inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate, diacylglycerol and cyclic GMP. Despite universal use of somatostatin, the cellular and biochemical mechanisms of its effects in portal hypertension are relatively poorly studied and remain incompletely understood. In this review, we summarize relevant signal transduction of somatostatin and analogues, the haemodynamic effects of the drugs and the possible mechanisms by which these effects are mediated.

Review article: the management of acute variceal bleeding

Variceal haemorrhage is a common medical emergency with a high mortality (30-50%). Adequate resuscitation is vital, and once stabilised the patient should be moved to a high-dependency area. Antibiotics reduce mortality, and the vasoactive drug terlipressin should be administered if early endoscopy is unavailable. Early endoscopy is essential both to make the diagnosis and to allow therapeutic measures to be performed. The evidence suggests that variceal band ligation is the most effective therapy for oesophageal varices. If gastric varices are found at the index endoscopy the evidence at present is inadequate to be certain which is the best treatment, but both endoscopic therapy with cyanoacrylate or thrombin and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPSS) have been reported to be of benefit. When initial treatments fail, rescue therapy should be initiated. Most authorities agree that TIPSS is the rescue therapy of choice. Many questions remain concerning the treatment of acute variceal bleeding, particularly the ideal therapy for gastric varices and the role of combination vasoactive and endoscopic therapy. Randomised controlled trials are required to answer these important issues.

Management of variceal bleeding

Variceal hemorrhage complicates cirrhosis in as many as 50% of patients and results in considerable morbidity and mortality. This review covers all areas of importance in the prevention and treatment of this area, highlighting recent developments. Primary prophylaxis prevents first bleed, and pharmacotherapy with beta-blockade is the most widely accepted option. In an acute variceal hemorrhage, initial resuscitation and multiple organ support are paramount and are recommended along with antibiotic prophylaxis and specific medical therapies that may be given empirically before emergency endoscopy to reduce bleeding. Endoscopic techniques usually arrest bleeding, but when they fail, salvage therapy in the form of balloon tamponade, then transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts or surgery, may be appropriate. Secondary prophylaxis to prevent rebleeding is often instituted in the ICU and is vital to prevent recurrence of this life-threatening complication.

Emergency sclerotherapy versus medical interventions for bleeding oesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND

Emergency sclerotherapy is widely used as a first line therapy for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis, although pharmacological treatment may stop bleeding in the majority of patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether emergency sclerotherapy is superior to pharmacological treatment for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic and manual searches were combined until April 2001.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing sclerotherapy with vasoactive treatments (vasopressin (plus minus nitroglycerin), terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide) for acute variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent reviewers identified eligible trials and extracted data. Outcome measures were failure to control bleeding, five-day treatment failure, rebleeding before other elective treatments, 42-day rebleeding, mortality before other elective treatments, 42-day mortality, number of blood transfusions, and adverse events. Data were analysed by a random effects model according to the vasoactive treatment. Sensitivity analyses included combined analysis of all the trials irrespective of the vasoactive drug, fixed effects model analyses, type of publication, methodological quality, and adequacy of generation of the randomisation list and of allocation concealment.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials including 1146 patients (pts) were identified. One trial compared sclerotherapy with vasopressin, one with terlipressin, four with somatostatin, and six with octreotide. No significant differences were found comparing sclerotherapy with each vasoactive drug for any outcomes. Combining all the trials irrespective of the vasoactive drug, risk differences (95% confidence intervals) were: failure to control bleeding (11 RCTs, 977 pts) -0.03 (-0.07 to 0.01); five-day failure rate (7 RCTs, 759 pts) -0.05 (-0.12 to 0.01); rebleeding (11 RCTs, 1082 pts) -0.01(-0.06 to 0.04); rebleeding before other elective treatments (9 RCTs, 975 pts) -0.02 (-0.06 to 0.03); mortality (12 RCTs, 1146 pts) -0.04 (-0.08 to 0.00); mortality before other elective treatments (5 RCTs, 474 pts) -0.02 (-0.07 to 0.04); transfused blood units (7 RCTs, 793 pts) (weighted mean difference) -0.17 (-0.52 to 0.19). Adverse events (11 RCTs, 1082 pts) and serious adverse events (5 RCTs, 602 pts) were significantly more frequent with sclerotherapy: risk differences 0.08 (0.02 to 0.14) and 0.05 (0.02 to 0.08), respectively. Results were consistent across all the other sensitivity analyses.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing evidence to support the use of emergency sclerotherapy for variceal bleeding in cirrhosis as the first, single treatment when compared with vasoactive drugs.

Management of portal hypertension after variceal hemorrhage

Each variceal bleed is associated with 20% to 30% risk of dying. Management of portal hypertension after a bleed consists of (1) control of bleeding and (2) prevention of rebleeding. Effective control of bleeding can be achieved either pharmacologically by administering somatostatin or octreotide or endoscopically via sclerotherapy or variceal band ligation. In practice, both pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy are used concomitantly. Rebleeding can be prevented by endoscopic obliteration of varices. In this setting, variceal ligation is the preferred endoscopic modality. B-blockade is as effective as endoscopic therapy and, in combination, the two modalities may be additive.

Management of acute variceal haemorrhage

Endoscopic therapy and in particular endoscopic variceal banding ligation, in experienced hands, is the treatment of choice for acute variceal bleeding which remains a major cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Pharmacological therapy with Glypressin or somatostatin can be useful to gain time when the endoscopic expertise is not available or to help to obtain a clearer endoscopic view. Transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic stent shunt is currently used for endoscopic failures, producing similar results with the surgical portacaval shunts. Which one of the two should be preferred, since they both work best in relatively compensated patients, should be a balance between the available surgical and radiological expertise, the urgency of the situation and the expected course of the disease.

Octreotide for acute esophageal variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Studies of octreotide have not demonstrated a consistent benefit in efficacy or safety compared with conventional therapies. This study statistically pooled existing trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of octreotide for esophageal variceal hemorrhage.

METHODS

We identified randomized trials of octreotide for variceal hemorrhage from computerized databases, scientific meeting abstracts, and the manufacturer of octreotide. Blinded reviewers abstracted the data, and a meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Octreotide improved control of esophageal variceal hemorrhage compared with all alternative therapies combined (relative risk [RR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.77); vasopressin/terlipressin (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.81); or no additional intervention/placebo (among patients that received initial sclerotherapy/banding before randomization) (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.67). Octreotide had comparable efficacy to immediate sclerotherapy for control of bleeding (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.55-1.62), fewer major complications than vasopressin/terlipessin (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.87), and a complication profile comparable to no intervention/placebo (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.72-1.55). No specific alternative therapy demonstrated a mortality benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

These results favor octreotide over vasopressin/terlipressin in the control of esophageal variceal bleeding and suggest it is a safe and effective adjunctive therapy after variceal obliteration techniques. Trials are needed to determine the optimal dose, route, and duration of octreotide treatment.

[Sclerotherapy versus somatostatin in the treatment of upper digestive hemorrhage caused by rupture of esophageal varices]

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of somatostatin versus endoscopic sclerotherapy in the management of digestive bleeding caused by rupture of esophageal varices. Forty patients were evaluated; 21 were randomly assigned to receive somatostatin (initial 250 micrograms followed by a 48-hour continuous infusion of 250 micrograms/h and 250 micrograms 6/6 h bolus in the first 24 hours) and 19 to receive endoscopic sclerotherapy with ethanolamine oleate 5%. The patients were evaluated after 48 hours and after 7 days of treatment. Both groups of patients were similar in sex, age, gravity of the hemorrhage and liver dysfunction. Therapeutic failure occurred in 26.3% and 35.7% in the group of endoscopic sclerotherapy (48 h and 7 days respectively), and in 23.8% and 21.4% in the group of somatostatin. The need of blood transfusion (3.38 U in the group of endoscopic sclerotherapy and 2.42 U in the group of somatostatin) and the mortality rate (31.6% in the group of endoscopic sclerotherapy and 28.6% in the group of somatostatin) were also similar (P > 0.05). The authors conclude that somatostatin is as effective as endoscopic sclerotherapy and that it should be considered in the treatment of acute esophageal variceal bleeding.

Drug treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices

At the time of diagnosis of cirrhosis, varices are present in about 60% of decompensated and 30% of compensated patients. The risk factors for the first episode of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients are the severity of liver dysfunction, a large size of the varices and the presence of endoscopic red colour signs, but only a third of patients who suffer variceal haemorrhage demonstrate the above risk factors. The only treatment that does not require sophisticated equipment or the skills of a specialist, and is immediately available, is vasoactive drug therapy. Hence, drug therapy should be considered to be the initial treatment of choice and can be administered while the patient is transferred to hospital, as has been done in one recent study. Moreover, drug therapy is no longer considered to be only a 'stop-gap' therapy until definitive endoscopic therapy is performed. Several recent trials have reported an efficacy similar to that of emergency sclerotherapy in the control of variceal bleeding. Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that those patients with high variceal or portal pressure are likely to continue to bleed or re-bleed early, implying that prolonged therapy lowering the portal pressure over several days may be the optimal treatment. Pharmacological treatment with beta-blockers is safe, effective and the standard long-term treatment for the prevention of recurrence of variceal bleeding. The combination of beta-blockers with isosorbide-5-mononitrate needs further testing in randomized controlled trials. The use of haemodynamic targets for the reduction of the HVPG response needs further study, and surrogate markers of the pressure response need evaluation. Ligation has recently been compared with beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis, but there is as yet no good evidence to recommend banding for primary prophylaxis if beta-blockers can be given.

Esophageal varices. I. Clinical presentation, medical therapy, and endoscopic therapy

The last half century has witnessed great advances in the understanding of the pathogenesis and natural history of portal hypertension in cirrhotics. Several pharmacologic and endoscopic techniques have been developed for the treatment of portal hypertension. The use of these agents in a given patient must be based on an understanding of the stage in the natural history of the disease and the relative efficacy and safety of the available treatment options.

Comparison of endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy alone and in combination with octreotide in controlling acute variceal hemorrhage and early rebleeding in patients with low-risk cirrhosis

OBJECTIVE

Efficacy of endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy (EVS) alone and in combination with octreotide in controlling acute variceal bleeding and preventing early rebleeding was compared in a double-blind study.

METHODS

Consecutive patients presenting with variceal bleeding with low-risk liver cirrhosis were randomized into two groups. Group A received EVS with 3-5 ml of ethanolamine oleate per varix and placebo injection at 50 microg/h; group B received the combined therapy of EVS and octreotide 50 microg/h continuously for 5 days. A total of 70 patients (mean age, 38.4 +/- 8.6 yr) were selected for the study, which included 56 men (mean age, 37.9 +/- 8.5 yr) and 14 women (mean age, 40.6 +/- 9.0 yr). Thirty-five patients were allocated in each group.

RESULTS

In group A bleeding was controlled in 30 patients (85.7%) and in group B in 33 (94.3%) (p = 0.24). The number of patients who rebled during the first 5 days after sclerotherapy was eight (22.9%) and two (5.7%) in groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.04). The mean packs of blood transfused to the patients of groups A and B were 2.1 +/- 1.2 packs and 1.5 +/- 0.7 packs, respectively (p = 0.03). The mean hospital stay of group A was 6.6 +/- 1.3 days, whereas that in group B was 5.9 +/- 1.2 days (p = 0.04). One patient from each group died during the course of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was observed in arrest of bleeding in the two groups, but episodes of early rebleeding, blood transfusions, and hospital stay was significantly less in group B.

Somatostatin and the gastrointestinal tract

Somatostatin has various significant effects on the gastrointestinal tract: it inhibits the release of several gastrointestinal hormones, blocks the exocrine function of the stomach and the pancreas, and decreases the motility of both the stomach and the gut. Its physiological effects make it potentially useful in the therapy of various gastrointestinal diseases and disorders. Somatostatin is effective in the management of active variceal bleeding and increases the effectiveness of sclerotherapy. Previous studies show controversial data about the efficacy of somatostatin in preventing complications following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The use of this compound may be indicated only in high-risk patients in whom endoscopic sphincterotomy may also become necessary. The perioperative use of somatostatin decreases the risk of pancreatic surgery and its application is effective in promoting the closure of pancreatic fistulae. The somatostatin analogue octreotide has a definitive role in the medical management of hormone-secreting neuroendocrine tumours of the gut.

An evidence-based approach to the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding

Esophageal varices are a life threatening cause of gastrointestinal bleeding. Management includes both primary prevention of variceal bleeding and treatment of actively bleeding varices. Evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that beta blockers and nitrates may prevent the initial episode of bleeding varices. Ample data from randomized controlled trials indicate that band ligation is more effective than scleropathy for the treatment of bleeding esophageal varices. Somatostatin may decrease rebleeding rates with or without endoscopic therapy. No effective treatment has been developed for the treatment of patients who fail endoscopic therapy.

Optimizing emergency care of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhotic patients

The type of emergency treatment administered to patients with suspected variceal bleeding is important, as the episode is associated with a high mortality rate. Moreover, rebleeding is common during the first few days after the initial haemorrhage. Several techniques are available to control variceal haemorrhage including pharmacotherapy (vasopressin, terlipressin, somatostatin and octreotide), balloon tamponade, endoscopic techniques, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and shunt surgery. The majority of these require specialized equipment and/or experienced personnel, which are not always available in every hospital. In such situations, pharmacotherapy represents the most practical method of establishing haemodynamic control prior to the administration of definitive treatment. Pharmacotherapy can be initiated immediately upon admission to stabilize the patient prior to diagnostic endoscopy, which subsequently improves the efficacy and ease of administration of further endoscopic intervention. The optimal pharmacological agent should be both effective and safe. A drug with no side effects will not complicate the management of critical patients and can be administered over an extended period to reduce the incidence of rebleeding and improve prognosis. Meta-analysis of clinical studies has revealed that of the vasoactive drugs available somatostatin is effective with significantly fewer side effects and currently appears to represent the best choice for treatment. The available evidence suggests that the early administration of pharmacotherapy, as part of a specific treatment regimen, offers significant benefit to patients with variceal bleeding and its administration optimizes emergency care.

Advances in drug therapy for acute variceal haemorrhage

Recent advances in the pharmacology of portal hypertension are reviewed, against the background of existing knowledge and current clinical research. The most recent trials are analysed, and conclusions made about the use of drugs in acute variceal haemorrhage, as well as directions for further clinical trials and research.

Effect of octreotide on systemic, central, and splanchnic haemodynamics in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Cirrhosis with portal hypertension is associated with changes in the splanchnic and systemic haemodynamics, and subsequent complications, such as bleeding from oesophageal varices, have led to the introduction of long-acting somatostatin analogues in the treatment of portal hypertension. However, reports on the splanchnic and systemic effects of octreotide are contradictory and therefore the aim of the present study was to assess the effects of continuous infusion of octreotide on central and systemic haemodynamics, portal pressures, and hepatic blood flow.

METHODS

Thirteen patients with cirrhosis underwent liver vein catheterisation. Portal and arterial blood pressures were determined at baseline and 10, 30, and 50 min after a bolus injection of octreotide 100 micrograms, followed by continuous infusion of octreotide 100 micrograms/ h for 1 h. Hepatic blood flow, cardiac output, central and arterial blood volume, and central circulation time were determined at baseline and 50 min after the start of the octreotide infusion.

RESULTS

The mean arterial blood pressure increased during the first 10 min (p < 0.0005), but returned to baseline after 50 min. The central and arterial blood volume (-16%, p < 0.005) and the central circulation time (-8%, p < 0.05) were significantly decreased after 50 min, whereas the cardiac output did not change significantly. The hepatic venous pressure gradient and the hepatic blood flow did not change significantly at any time after infusion of octreotide.

CONCLUSIONS

Octreotide does not affect the portal pressure or hepatic blood flow, whereas it may further contract the central blood volume and thereby exert a potentially harmful effect on central hypovolaemia in patients with cirrhosis. However, these early effects do not exclude the possibility that administration of longacting somatostatin analogues over a longer period may have a beneficial effect.

Clinical uses of gut peptides

OBJECTIVE

The authors review clinical applications of gut-derived peptides as diagnostic and therapeutic agents.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

An increasing number of gut peptides have been evaluated for clinical use. Earlier uses as diagnostic agents have been complemented more recently by increasing application of gut peptides as therapeutic agents.

METHOD

The authors conducted a literature review.

RESULTS

Current experience with clinical use of gut peptides is described. Initial clinical applications focused on using secretomotor effects of gut peptides in diagnostic tests, many of which have now fallen into disuse. More recently, attention has been directed toward harnessing these secretomotor effects for therapeutic use in a variety of disorders, and also using the trophic effects of gut peptides to modulate gut mucosal growth in benign and malignant disease. Gut peptides have been evaluated in a variety of other clinical situations including use as adjuncts to imaging techniques, and modification of behaviors such as feeding and panic disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

Gut peptides have been used successfully in an increasing variety of clinical conditions. Further refinements in analogue and antagonist design are likely to lead to even more selective agents that may have important clinical applications. Further studies are needed to identity and evaluate these new agents.

Management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the patient with chronic liver disease

This article reviews the management of severe upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the patient with chronic liver diseases. The initial assessment, diagnostic work-up, and treatment options for variceal and nonvariceal bleeding are discussed. The role of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy for esophagogastric varices is reviewed with special emphasis on new endoscopic techniques including variceal band ligation and cyanoacrylate injection. Various pharmacologic, surgical, and radiologic treatment options for variceal bleeding also are discussed. In addition, nonvariceal causes of severe upper gastrointestinal bleeding are reviewed including peptic ulcer diseases, Mallory-Weiss tear, portal hypertensive gastropathy, and gastric antral vascular ectasia.