Effect of intravariceal sclerotherapy combined with esophageal mucosal sclerotherapy using small-volume sclerosant for cirrhotic patients with high variceal pressure

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.

Effects of Preoperative Oral Carbohydrate on Cirrhotic Patients under Endoscopic Therapy with Anesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Preoperative fasting causes significant perioperative discomfort in patients. Preoperative oral carbohydrate (POC) is an important element of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol, but its effect on cirrhotic patients who tend to have abnormal gastric emptying remains unclarified. We investigated the influence of POC on gastric emptying and preprocedural well-being in cirrhotic patients. A prospective, randomized, controlled study of cirrhotic patients with gastroesophageal varices scheduled for elective therapeutic endoscopy under intravenous anesthesia was conducted. We enrolled 180 patients and divided them into three groups: those not supplemented with carbohydrates for 8 h before therapeutic endoscopy (control group) and those administered a carbohydrate beverage 2 h (2 h group) and 4 h (4 h group) before endoscopy. The residual gastric volume was quantified before anesthesia, gastric emptying was evaluated using gastric ultrasonography, and preprocedural well-being was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Preanesthesia gastric sonography scores were similar among the three groups. No patient had residual gastric volume > 1.5 ml/kg in the control and 4 h groups, but six patients (11%) had a residual gastric volume of >1.5 ml/kg in the 2 h group, hence were at a risk of regurgitation and aspiration. Moreover, VAS scores for six parameters (thirst, hunger, mouth dryness, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue) in the 2 h group and three parameters (thirst, hunger, and mouth dryness) in the 4 h group were significantly lower than those in the control group, suggesting a beneficial effect on cirrhotic patients' well-being. Preoperative gastric peristaltic and operation scores, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and in-hospital expenses were not significantly different among the three groups. Our study indicated that avoiding preoperative fasting with oral carbohydrates administered 4 h before anesthesia can be achieved in cirrhotic patients. Further studies to assess whether POC can help improve postoperative outcomes in cirrhotic patients are needed.

Cap-Assisted Endoscopic Sclerotherapy vs Ligation in the Long-Term Management of Medium Esophageal Varices: A Randomized Trial

Compared with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), cap-assisted endoscopic sclerotherapy (CAES) improves efficacy in the treatment of small esophageal varices (EVs) but has not been evaluated in the management of medium EVs. The aim of this study was to compare CAES with EVL in the long-term management of patients exhibiting cirrhosis with medium EVs and a history of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB), with respect to variceal eradication and recurrence, adverse events, rebleeding, and survival.

Secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.

Transparent cap-assisted endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for the treatment of patients with esophageal varices

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of cap-assisted endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) versus direct EIS in the management of esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.This retrospective study included patients with cirrhosis and esophageal variceal bleeding who underwent EIS with or without the use of a transparent cap at Shandong Provincial Hospital between December 2014 and April 2017. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A (EIS with transparent cap, n = 50) and Group B (direct EIS, n = 45). Data collected included patients' demographics, procedure details, and rates of variceal eradication, variceal rebleeding, variceal recurrence, and survival during the follow-up period. All data were expressed as mean ± SD. Quantitative variables were compared with Student t test; qualitative variables were compared with the Fisher exact test or chi-square test. P values less than .05 were considered significant.The mean follow-up duration was similar in both groups (16.3 ± 10.2 mo in Group A and 15.5 ± 9.5 mo in Group B). The volume of sclerosant (64.86 ± 10.62 vs 104.73 ± 21.25 ml, P = .044), mean number of sessions (2.37 ± 1.15 vs 5.70 ± 1.57, P = .042), time required to perform endoscopic treatment (6.57 ± 1.50 vs 11.22 ± 2.29 minutes, P = .049), and time to initial esophageal varices eradication (5.43 ± 1.38 vs 8.93 ± 1.5 wk, P = .041) were significantly smaller in the cap-assisted EIS group than in the direct EIS group. The probability of variceal recurrence and rebleeding was significantly higher in the direct EIS group than in the cap-assisted EIS group (14% versus 35.6% and 20% versus 40%). Only 22 patients (44%) developed complications in the cap-assisted group versus 30 patients (66.7%) in the EIS group (P = .039). The probability of survival was similar in both groups (86% versus 75.6%, P = .133).Modified EIS with the use of a transparent cap resulted in lower rates of esophageal variceal recurrence, rebleeding, and complications, compared with direct EIS.

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.

Endoscopic treatment of esophagogastric varices: Problems and thoughts

Esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EVB) is a common digestive emergency, and it is usually severe and is associated with a high mortality. The American Association of Liver Diseases guidelines recommend endoscopic treatment as the first choice for acute EVB. Studies have shown that emergency endoscopic hemostasis can achieve a success rate of > 90% and thus reduce the incidence of early rebleeding and the mortality rate of patients. Endoscopic treatment mainly includes endoscopic variceal ligation, endoscopic injection sclerotherapy, tissue adhesive injection, and endoscopic therapy combined with other treatments. However, the therapeutic effect of endoscopic treatment is related to the operator's skill, portal pressure, collateral circulation, esophageal varices, and other factors. Therefore, endoscopic treatment is not indicated for all cases. In addition, endoscopic treatment may cause serious complications. Here we describe the problems and thoughts on endoscopic treatment of esophagogastric varices.