Endoscopic ligation compared with sclerotherapy for the treatment of bleeding esophageal varices

Endoscopic band ligation is safe despite low platelet count and high INR

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is used to prevent variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis. The association of thrombocytopenia, high INR (international normalized ratio) and liver dysfunction with the risk of procedure-related bleeding (PRB) remains debated and recommendations are controversial.

METHODS

We analyzed real-life data of cirrhotic patients undergoing elective EBL at two large Viennese centers between Q1/2000-Q1/2018. PRB was defined as bleeding occurring within 30 days after EBL.

RESULTS

We included 617 patients undergoing a total of 1178 prophylactic EBL procedures (median 2 per patient). Sixteen (2.6%) of 617 patients experienced PRB after a median of 12.5 (IQR 17.3) days with no difference in characteristics and laboratory values between the two groups. The proportion of patients with platelets (PLT) < 50 G/L or INR ≥ 1.5 was similar in patients with vs. without PRB. A higher MELD showed a non-significant association with EBL-related bleeding risk (odds ratio, OR 1.07; 95% confidence interval 95% CI 1.00-1.16, p = 0.058). While serum bilirubin was a significant predictor for PRB (OR: 1.10; 95% CI 1.03-1.18), the presence of large varices (OR 0.85 vs. small varices; 95% CI 0.20-3.84), INR (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.10-3.14), PLT (OR 1.00; 95% CI 1.00-1.01) and the use of non-selective betablockers (OR 1.20; CI 95% 0.38-3.76) were not associated with PRB.

CONCLUSION

EBL is safe and procedure-related bleedings are rare (2.6%) including in patients with thrombocytopenia < 50 G/L or high INR ≥ 1.5. Only high MELD, and especially high bilirubin seem to be linked to an increased risk of EBL-related bleeding.

Comparative study for predictability of type 1 gastric variceal rebleeding after endoscopic variceal ligation: High-frequency intraluminal ultrasound study

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography for the follow-up of gastric varices treated with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) has not been established.

AIM

To evaluate the diagnostic correlation of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and high-frequency intraluminal ultrasound (HFIUS) for type 1 gastric varices (GOV1) after EVL and to identify the predictability for rebleeding of EGD and HFIUS.

METHODS

In liver cirrhosis patients with GOV1, we performed endoscopic follow-up using EGD and HFIUS synchronously after EVL for hemorrhage from GOV1. Endoscopic grading and red color signs were analyzed using EGD, and the largest variceal cross-sectional areas were measured using HFIUS. In addition, 1-year follow-up was performed. Variceal rebleeding was defined as the presence of hematemesis, hematochezia, or melena without other evidence of bleeding on endoscopic follow-up.

RESULTS

In 26 patients with GOV1, variceal cross-sectional areas on HFIUS of GOV1 was poorly correlated with EGD grading of GOV1 (r = 0.36). In 17 patients who completed the 1-year follow-up, variceal cross-sectional areas on HFIUS was a good predictor of subsequent rebleeding, whereas EGD grading was not a predictor of subsequent rebleeding.

CONCLUSION

HFIUS measurement is more predictive of GOV1 rebleeding than EGD grading, so HFIUS measurement may be necessary for endoscopic follow-up after EVL in patients with GOV1.

Advances in the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Safety and Efficiency of Transnasal Endoscopy

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common disorder and a gastroenterological emergency. With the development of new techniques and devices, the survivability after gastrointestinal bleeding is improving. However, at the same time, we are facing the difficulty of severely complicated cases with various diseases. For example, while endoscopic examination with a normal diameter endoscope is essential for the diagnosis and treatment of UGIB, there are several cases in which it cannot be used. In these cases, transnasal endoscopy (TNE) may be a viable treatment option. This report reviews current hemostatic devices for endoscopic treatment and the safety and efficiency of using TNE in complicated cases. The latter will be demonstrated in a case report where TNE was employed in a patient with severe esophageal stenosis. This review summarizes the advances made in the devices used and will provide further ideas for the physician in terms of combining these devices and TNE.

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.

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.

Risk factors associated with bleeding after prophylactic endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVL) is frequently performed in patients with liver cirrhosis. The aim of our study was to identify factors associated with early upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in cirrhosis patients after prophylactic EVL.

METHODS

787 nonemergency EVLs performed in 444 patients in two German University medical centers were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Within 30 days after EVL, 38 UGIBs were observed (4.8 % of all procedures). Bilirubin levels (hazard ratio [HR] 1.5, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.2-2.0 for a 2-fold increase) and presence of varices grade III/IV according to Paquet (HR 2.6, 95 %CI 1.3-5.0 compared with absence or smaller sized varices) were independently associated with UGIB following EVL. International normalized ratio (INR) was associated with bleeding events in the univariate analysis but did not reach statistical significance after adjustment for bilirubin and presence of varices grade III/IV (HR 1.2, 95 %CI 0.9-1.6 for an increase by 0.25). There was no statistically significant association between platelet count or fibrinogen levels and UGIB. Substitution of coagulation products did not affect incidence of bleeding after EVL, which also applied to patients with "coagulopathy" (INR > 1.5 and/or platelet count < 50 × 10⁹/L). No association between proton pump inhibitor therapy and post-EVL UGIB was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

EVL is a safe procedure and immediate bleeding complications are rare. Serum bilirubin levels and size of varices, rather than coagulation indices, are associated with UGIB after EVL. Our data do not support the preventive substitution of blood or coagulation products.

Treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in 2020: New techniques and outcomes

The clinical outcome of upper gastrointestinal bleeding has improved due to advances in endoscopic therapy and standardized peri-endoscopy care. Apart from validating clinical scores, artificial intelligence-assisted machine learning models may play an important role in risk stratification. While standard endoscopic treatments remain irreplaceable, novel endoscopic modalities have changed the landscape of management. Over-the-scope clips have high success rates as rescue or even first-line treatments in difficult-to-treat cases. Hemostatic powder is safe and easy to use, which can be useful as temporary control with its high immediate hemostatic ability. After endoscopic hemostasis, Doppler endoscopic probe can offer an objective measure to guide the treatment endpoint. In refractory bleeding, angiographic embolization should be considered before salvage surgery. In variceal hemorrhage, banding ligation and glue injection are first-line treatment options. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapy is gaining popularity due to its capability of precise localization for treatment targets. A self-expandable metal stent may be considered as an alternative option to balloon tamponade in refractory bleeding. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting should be reserved as salvage therapy. In this article, we aim to provide an evidence-based comprehensive review of the major advancements in endoscopic hemostatic techniques and clinical outcomes.

Defining the advantages and exposing the limitations of endoscopic variceal ligation in controlling acute bleeding and achieving complete variceal eradication

BACKGROUND

Bleeding esophageal varices (BEV) is a potentially life-threatening complication in patients with portal hypertension with mortality rates as high as 25% within six weeks of the index variceal bleed. After control of the initial bleeding episode patients should enter a long-term surveillance program with endoscopic intervention combined with non-selective β-blockers to prevent further bleeding and eradicate EV.

AIM

To assess the efficacy of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in controlling acute variceal bleeding, preventing variceal recurrence and rebleeding and achieving complete eradication of esophageal varices (EV) in patients who present with BEV.

METHODS

A prospectively documented single-center database was used to retrospectively identify all patients with BEV who were treated with EVL between 2000 and 2018. Control of acute bleeding, variceal recurrence, rebleeding, eradication and survival were analyzed using Baveno assessment criteria.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty patients (100 men, 40 women; mean age 50 years; range, 21–84 years; Child-Pugh grade A = 32; B = 48; C = 60) underwent 160 emergency and 298 elective EVL interventions during a total of 928 endoscopy sessions. One hundred and fourteen (81%) of the 140 patients had variceal bleeding that was effectively controlled during the index banding procedure and never bled again from EV, while 26 (19%) patients had complicated and refractory variceal bleeding. EVL controlled the acute sentinel variceal bleed during the first endoscopic intervention in 134 of 140 patients (95.7%). Six patients required balloon tamponade for control and 4 other patients rebled in hospital. Overall 5-d endoscopic failure to control variceal bleeding was 7.1% (n = 10) and four patients required a salvage transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Index admission mortality was 14.2% (n = 20). EV were completely eradicated in 50 of 111 patients (45%) who survived > 3 mo of whom 31 recurred and 3 rebled. Sixteen (13.3%) of 120 surviving patients subsequently had 21 EV rebleeding episodes and 10 patients bled from other sources after discharge from hospital. Overall rebleeding from all sources after 2 years was 21.7% (n = 26). Sixty-nine (49.3%) of the 140 patients died, mainly due to liver failure (n = 46) during follow-up. Cumulative survival for the 140 patients was 71.4% at 1 year, 65% at 3 years, 60% at 5 years and 52.1% at 10 years.

CONCLUSION

EVL was highly effective in controlling the sentinel variceal bleed with an overall 5-day failure to control bleeding of 7.1%. Although repeated EVL achieved complete variceal eradication in less than half of patients with BEV, of whom 62% recurred, there was a significant reduction in subsequent rebleeding.

Efficacy of endoscopic treatments for acute esophageal variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aim  Guidelines recommend use of ligation and vasoactive drugs as first-line therapy and as grade A evidence for acute variceal bleeding (AVB), although Western studies about this issue are lacking. Methods  We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic treatments for AVB in patients with cirrhosis. Trials that included patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, use of portocaval shunts or esophageal resection, balloon tamponade as first bleeding control measure, or that received placebo or elective treatment in one study arm were excluded. Results  A total of 8382 publications were searched, of which 36 RCTs with 3593 patients were included. Ligation was associated with a significant improvement in bleeding control (relative risk [RR] 1.08; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.02 - 1.15) when compared to sclerotherapy. Sclerotherapy combined with vasoactive drugs showed higher efficacy in active bleeding control compared to sclerotherapy alone (RR 1.17; 95 % CI 1.10 - 1.25). The combination of ligation and vasoactive drugs was not superior to ligation alone in terms of overall rebleeding (RR 2.21; 95 %CI 0.55 - 8.92) and in-hospital mortality (RR 1.97; 95 %CI 0.78 - 4.97). Other treatments did not generate meta-analysis. Conclusions  This study showed that ligation is superior to sclerotherapy, although with moderate heterogeneity. The combination of sclerotherapy and vasoactive drugs was more effective than sclerotherapy alone. Although current guidelines recommend combined use of ligation with vasoactive drugs in treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding, this study failed to demonstrate the superiority of this combined treatment.

Successful treatment of repeated hematemesis secondary to postsclerotherapy esophageal ulcer in a cirrhotic patient: A case report

Esophageal variceal bleeding is a common lethal complication of cirrhosis. Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) is one of the major endoscopic approaches for treating esophageal variceal bleeding. However, complications may occur after EIS, which mainly include retrosternal discomfort/pain, dysphagia, re-bleeding, esophageal ulcer, esophageal strictures, and esophageal perforation, etc. In this article, we reported a 36-year-old male who developed esophageal ulcer related bleeding after EIS. Currently, there is no consensus on the treatment strategy for esophageal ulcer-related bleeding after EIS. In the present case, the following treatment strategy may be effective for ulcer related bleeding. The first step is to inhibit gastric acid secretion and reduce portal pressure by intravenous infusion of esomeprazole and somatostatin, respectively. The second is local hemostasis by oral norepinephrine and lyophilizing thrombin powder. The third is to protect digestive tract mucosa by oral Kangfuxin Ye and aluminum phosphate.

Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension

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

African-Americans with Cirrhosis Are Less Likely to Receive Endoscopic Variceal Screening Within One Year of Cirrhosis Diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Esophageal variceal hemorrhage is a complication of cirrhosis that carries high mortality, and can be reduced with timely endoscopic variceal screening and treatment.

AIM

We aim to evaluate overall rates of and disparities in receipt of endoscopic variceal screening among an ethnically diverse urban safety-net hospital.

METHODS

All consecutive adults with cirrhosis (7/1/2014 to 12/31/2015) were retrospectively evaluated to determine the rates of receiving esophageal variceal screening within 6 months and within 1 year after cirrhosis diagnosis. Race-/ethnicity-specific differences in rates of variceal screening were compared using chi-square testing and multivariate regression methods.

RESULTS

Among 157 patients (65% male, 33.8% Hispanic, 22.3% African-American, 44.6% alcoholic liver disease, 29.9% chronic HCV), 56.8% received variceal screening within 6 months and 65.8% received screening within 1 year. Compared to non-Hispanic whites with cirrhosis, African-Americans (52.2 vs. 76.2%, p < 0.05), Asians (57.1 vs. 76.2%, p < 0.05), and Hispanics (43.9 vs. 76.2%, p < 0.05) were all significantly less likely to receive endoscopic variceal screening within 6 months after cirrhosis diagnosis. On multivariate analysis, African-Americans with cirrhosis were 66% less likely to receive variceal screening compared to non-Hispanic whites (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.15-0.77, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Among adults with cirrhosis at a community-based safety-net hospital system, overall first-time variceal screening remains suboptimal. African-Americans were the least likely to receive timely variceal screening. These findings are particularly concerning given the significant barriers that ethnic minorities and safety-net populations already face in timely access to medical care.

Variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients

Variceal bleeding is one of the major causes of death in cirrhotic patients. The management during the acute phase and the secondary prophylaxis is well defined. Recent recommendations (2015 Baveno VI expert consensus) are available and should be followed for an optimal management, which must be performed as an emergency in a liver or general intensive-care unit. It is based on the early administration of a vasoactive drug (before endoscopy), an antibiotic prophylaxis and a restrictive transfusion strategy (hemoglobin target of 7 g/dL). The endoscopic treatment is based on band ligations. Sclerotherapy should be abandoned. In the most severe patients (Child Pugh C or B with active bleeding during initial endoscopy), transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) should be performed within 72 hours after admission to minimize the risk of rebleeding. Secondary prophylaxis is based on the association of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and repeated band ligations. TIPS should be considered when bleeding reoccurs in spite of a well-conducted secondary prophylaxis or when NSBBs are poorly tolerated. It should also be considered when bleeding is refractory. Liver transplantation should be discussed when bleeding is not controlled after TIPS insertion and in all cases when liver function is deteriorated.

Combination therapy versus pharmacotherapy, endoscopic variceal ligation, or the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt alone in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Patients with liver cirrhosis and variceal hemorrhage are at increased risk of rebleeding. We performed a meta-analysis toassess the clinical efficacy of combination therapy (pharmacotherapy and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL)) compared with pharmacotherapy, EVL, or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) alone in the prevention of rebleeding and mortality. A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, up until November 2016, identified relevant randomized controlled trials. Data analysis was performed using Stata 12.0. Regarding overall mortality, combination therapy was as effective as EVL, pharmacotherapy, and TIPS (relative risk (RR) = 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-1.08, RR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.68-1.63, and RR=1.39, 95% CI: 0.92-2.09, respectively). Combination therapy was as effective as EVL and pharmacotherapy alone in reducing blood-related mortality (RR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.15-1.25, and RR=0.42, 95% CI: 0.17-1.06), whereas TIPS was more effective than combination therapy (RR=5.66, 95% CI: 1.02-31.40). This was also the case for rebleeding; combination therapy was more effective than EVL and pharmacotherapy alone (RR=0.57, 95% CI: 0.41-0.79, and RR=0.65, 95% CI: 0.48-0.88), whereas TIPS was more effective than combination therapy (RR=9.42, 95% CI: 2.99-29.65). Finally, regarding rebleeding from esophageal varices, combination therapy was as effective as EVL alone (RR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.33-1.06) and was more effective than pharmacotherapy alone (RR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.40-0.85), although was less effective than TIPS (RR=2.20, 95% CI: 1.22-3.99). TIPS was recommended as the first choice of therapy in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding.

A Prospective Study of Endoscopic Injection Sclerotherapy and Endoscopic Variceal Ligation in the Treatment of Esophageal Varices

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in the management of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective study, we compared the EIS and EVL in 124 patients who had endoscopically proved bleeding from esophageal varices. According to different treatment methods, they were randomly divided into the EIS and the EVL groups. Sixty-four patients were treated with sclerotherapy and 60 with ligation. The patients were followed for a mean of 2 years, during which we determined the incidence of complications and recurrences of bleeding and the number of treatment sessions needed to eradicate varices, mortality, and survival.

RESULTS

Active bleeding at the first treatment was controlled by EIS in 19 of 19 patients and by EVL in 16 of 16 patients. The likelihood of early rebleeding was slightly smaller in the patients treated with EIS (7.8% versus 11.7%, P = .47). However, late rebleeding rate was slightly more in EIS patients (28.1% versus 23.3%, P = .54) without statistical significance. The rate of eradication of varices in the EIS group was slightly lower than in the EVL group (79.7% versus 86.7%, P = .30). There were also no statistically significant differences in mortality (1.6% versus 3.3%, P = .61) or survival rate (71.9% versus 78.3%, P = .41) (all P > .05) after EIS and EVL. However, fever in the EIS group was significantly higher compared to that of in the EVL group (n = 17, 26.6% versus n = 6, 10.0%, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Both EIS and EVL produce excellent results, are safe, effective, feasible, and acceptable for EVB with minimum complications and obviate need for subsequent procedures in the short term. To make better choice, we should consider the hospital conditions, operator experience, and the characteristics of esophageal varices.

Esophageal Rupture After Endoscopic Banding Ligation for Esophageal Varices Bleeding

A 39-year-old man with esophageal varices bleeding received 2 endoscopic banding ligations within 10 days. Unfortunately, esophageal rupture developed after the second treatment. The patient's history was reported and relevant literatures were reviewed.

Emergency endoscopic variceal ligation following variceal rupture in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein tumor thrombosis: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of treatment of ruptured varices in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) are unclear. We therefore evaluated the long- (rebleeding and death) and short-term (immediate death within 24 h of variceal bleeding diagnosis) outcomes of patients with PVTT who underwent emergency variceal band ligation.

METHODS

Data on 62 patients with PVTT and endoscopically proven esophageal or gastric variceal bleeding from 2007 to 2012 were studied. In most cases, the varices were treated using endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVL). We assessed the patients' rebleeding-free and overall survival using the Kaplan-Meier method, and a Cox proportional hazard model was used to analyze effect of independent factors on rebleeding-free and overall survival times.

RESULTS

Most patients had decompensated cirrhosis and were classified as Child-Pugh class B (56%) or C (36%). A total of 35 patients (56%) had PVTT in the main portal trunk. Among all patients, 58 (94%) and 4 (6%) had esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding, respectively. Bleeding was managed using EVL in all, but one patient (98%) who was treated with a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube. A total of 24 patients (39.3%) experienced rebleeding, and these patients had a median overall survival time of 36 days. A PVTT in the main portal trunk was predictive of rebleeding (hazard ratio 3.706, p = .0223), and α-fetoprotein-L3 levels <37.4% (hazard ratio 0.464, p = 0.015) and Child-Pugh class A/B (hazard ratio 0.398, p = 0.007) were associated with overall survival. We observed 95 bleeding events in 62 patients. EVL achieved hemostasis in 92 of the 95 bleeding events, whereas seven immediate deaths occurred due to variceal bleeding (7/92, 7.6%). All three bleeding events treated with modalities other than EVL resulted in immediate deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

EVL is a safe and effective treatment of variceal ruptures in patients with HCC and PVTT. After successful hemostasis, alleviation of the underlying liver function impairment and tumor control are equally important for a good prognosis.

Management of rectal varices in portal hypertension

Rectal varices are portosystemic collaterals that form as a complication of portal hypertension, their prevalence has been reported as high as 94% in patients with extrahepatic portal vein obstruction. The diagnosis is typically based on lower endoscopy (colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy). However, endoscopic ultrasonography has been shown to be superior to endoscopy in diagnosing rectal varices. Color Doppler ultrasonography is a better method because it allows the calculation of the velocity of blood flow in the varices and can be used to predict the bleeding risk in the varices. Although rare, bleeding from rectal varices can be life threatening. The management of patients with rectal variceal bleeding is not well established. It is important to ensure hemodynamic stability with blood transfusion and to correct any coagulopathy prior to treating the bleeding varices. Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy has been reported to be more effective in the management of active bleeding from rectal varices with less rebleeding rate as compared to endoscopic band ligation. Transjugular intrahepatic portsystemic shunt alone or in combination with embolization is another method used successfully in control of bleeding. Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration is an emerging procedure for management of gastric varices that has also been successfully used to treat bleeding rectal varices. Surgical procedures including suture ligation and porto-caval shunts are considered when other methods have failed.

Low risk of bacteremia after endoscopic variceal therapy for esophageal varices: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy (EVS) are the main therapeutic procedures for the emergency treatment and secondary prophylaxis of esophageal varices in cirrhotics. Post-endoscopic bacteremia has been reported after EVS and EVL, but data on the frequency of bacteremia are conflicting. This study aims to provide incidences of bacteremia after EVS and EVL in different settings through meta-analysis.

METHODS

Only prospective or randomized studies were included in this meta-analysis. Binomial distribution was used to compute variance for each study. Random effects models were used as the final model for estimating the effect size and 95 % confidence interval. Adjusted effects were obtained using meta-regression analysis.

RESULTS

Nineteen prospective studies involving 1001 procedures in 587 patients were included in the meta-analysis on the risk of bacteremia after EVS or EVL in cirrhotics with esophageal varices. The frequency of bacteremia after endoscopic variceal therapy was 13 %. The frequency of bacteremia after EVS (17 %) was higher than after EVL (6 %) with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.106). The frequency of bacteremia after elective EVS (14 %) was significantly less than after emergency EVS (22 %) (P < 0.001). The frequency of bacteremia after elective EVL (7.6 %) was not significantly different from after emergency EVL (3.2 %) (P = 0.850).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of bacteremia is low in patients with cirrhosis and varices after esophageal variceal therapy. These results are consistent with our current guidelines that antibiotic prophylaxis before endoscopic variceal therapy is only necessary for bleeding patients.

Endoscopic variceal ligation compared with endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for treatment of esophageal variceal hemorrhage: A meta-analysis

AIM: To compare the effect of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) with that of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) in the treatment of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding.

METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of multiple online electronic databases. Meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of combined studies for the treatment of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding between EVL and EIS.

RESULTS: Fourteen studies comprising 1236 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The rebleeding rate in actively bleeding varices patients in the EVL group was significantly lower than that in the EIS group (RR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.57-0.81). The variceal eradication rate in actively bleeding varices patients in the EVL group was significantly higher than that in the EIS group (RR = 1.06, 95%CI: 1.01-1.12). There was no significant difference about mortality rate between the EVL group and EIS group (RR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.77-1.17). The rate of complications in actively bleeding varices patients in the EVL group was significantly lower than that in the EIS group (RR = 0.28, 95%CI: 0.13-0.58).

CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis has found that EVL is better than EIS in terms of the lower rates of rebleeding, complications, and the higher rate of variceal eradication. Therefore, EVL is the first choice for esophageal variceal bleeding.

Endoscopic hemostasis in acute esophageal variceal bleeding

Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is a milestone event for patients with portal hypertension. Esophageal varices bleed because of an increase in portal pressure that causes the variceal wall to rupture. AVB in a patient with cirrhosis and portal hypertension is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The initial management of these patients includes proper resuscitation, antibiotic prophylaxis, pharmacologic therapy with vasoconstrictors, and endoscopic therapy. Intravascular fluid management, timing of endoscopy, and endoscopic technique are key in managing these patients. This article reviews the current endoscopic hemostatic strategies for patients with AVB.

Endoscopic band ligation and esophageal stents for acute variceal bleeding

Patients with portal hypertension and esophageal varices are at risk of bleeding due to a progressive increase in portal pressure that may rupture the variceal wall. Appropriate treatment with initial general measures, such as resuscitation, a restrictive transfusion policy, antibiotic prophylaxis, pharmacologic therapy with vasoconstrictors, and endoscopic therapy with endoscopic band ligation are mandatory. However, 10% to 15% of patients fail initial endoscopic therapy and thus rescue therapies are needed. This article reviews the current endoscopic strategies with band ligation and esophageal stents for patients with acute variceal bleeding.

Portal hypertension and gastrointestinal bleeding: Diagnosis, prevention and management

Bleeding from esophageal varices is a life threatening complication of portal hypertension. Primary prevention of bleeding in patients at risk for a first bleeding episode is therefore a major goal. Medical prophylaxis consists of non-selective beta-blockers like propranolol or carvedilol. Variceal endoscopic band ligation is equally effective but procedure related morbidity is a drawback of the method. Therapy of acute bleeding is based on three strategies: vasopressor drugs like terlipressin, antibiotics and endoscopic therapy. In refractory bleeding, self-expandable stents offer an option for bridging to definite treatments like transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Treatment of bleeding from gastric varices depends on vasopressor drugs and on injection of varices with cyanoacrylate. Strategies for primary or secondary prevention are based on non-selective beta-blockers but data from large clinical trials is lacking. Therapy of refractory bleeding relies on shunt-procedures like TIPS. Bleeding from ectopic varices, portal hypertensive gastropathy and gastric antral vascular ectasia-syndrome is less common. Possible medical and endoscopic treatment options are discussed.

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.

Management of varices in patients with cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding remains a life-threatening condition with a 6-week mortality rate of ∼20%. Prevention of variceal bleeding can be achieved using nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic band ligation (EBL), with NSBBs as the first-line treatment. EBL should be reserved for cases of intolerance or contraindications to NSBBs. Although NSBBs cannot be used to prevent varices, if the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is ≤10 mmHg, prognosis is excellent. Survival after acute variceal bleeding has improved over the past three decades, but patients with Child-Pugh grade C cirrhosis remain at greatest risk. Vasoactive drugs combined with endoscopic therapy and antibiotics are the best therapeutic strategy for these patients. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) should be used in patients with uncontrolled bleeding or those who are likely to have difficult-to-control bleeding. Rebleeding from varices occurs in ∼60% of patients 1-2 years after the initial bleeding episode, with a mortality rate of 30%. Secondary prophylaxis should start at day 6 after initial bleeding using a combination of NSBBs and EBL. TIPS with polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents are the preferred option in patients who fail combined treatment with NSBBs and EBL. Despite the improvement in patient survival, further studies are needed to direct the management of patients with gastro-oesophageal varices and variceal bleeding.

[Mexican consensus on portal hypertension]

The aim of the Mexican Consensus on Portal Hypertension was to develop documented guidelines to facilitate clinical practice when dealing with key events of the patient presenting with portal hypertension and variceal bleeding. The panel of experts was made up of Mexican gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and endoscopists, all distinguished professionals. The document analyzes themes of interest in the following modules: preprimary and primary prophylaxis, acute variceal hemorrhage, and secondary prophylaxis. The management of variceal bleeding has improved considerably in recent years. Current information indicates that the general management of the cirrhotic patient presenting with variceal bleeding should be carried out by a multidisciplinary team, with such an approach playing a major role in the final outcome. The combination of drug and endoscopic therapies is recommended for initial management; vasoactive drugs should be started as soon as variceal bleeding is suspected and maintained for 5 days. After the patient is stabilized, urgent diagnostic endoscopy should be carried out by a qualified endoscopist, who then performs the corresponding endoscopic variceal treatment. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be regarded as an integral part of treatment, started upon hospital admittance and continued for 5 days. If there is treatment failure, rescue therapies should be carried out immediately, taking into account that interventional radiology therapies are very effective in controlling refractory variceal bleeding. These guidelines have been developed for the purpose of achieving greater clinical efficacy and are based on the best evidence of portal hypertension that is presently available.

Esophageal variceal ligation in the secondary prevention of variceal bleeding: Result of long term follow-up

Introduction

Long-term outcome of patients after band ligation have been poorly defined. Therefore, we conducted a long-term follow-up study to delineate the outcome of ligation in patients with portal hypertension in the Hassan II university hospital, Fes, Morocco.

Methods

Over 118 months patients treated by endoscopic variceal ligation were received regular follow- up and detailed clinical assessment of at least 24 months.

Results

One hundred twenty five patients were followed up for a mean of 31 months (range 12-107 months). Obliteration of the varices was achieved in 89.6 % (N = 112) of patients, with 3 +/-1.99 (range 1-8) endoscopy sessions over a period of 14 + /-6.8 weeks (range 3-28). The percentage of variceal recurrence during follow-up after ligation was 20.5 % (N = 23). Recurrence were observed in a mean of 22 months +/- 7.3 (range 3-48). Bleeding rate from recurrent varices was 30.4 % (7/23). Rebleeding from esophageal ulcers occurred in 5.6 % (7/125) of patients. Portal hypertensive gastropathy before and after eradication of varices was 17.6% (N = 22) and 44.6% (N = 50) respectively; p< 0.05. Fundal gastric varices was 30.4% (N = 38) and 35.7% (N = 40) before and after eradication of varices respectively; p> 0.05. The overall mortality was 4 % (N = 5).

Conclusion

Band ligation was an effective technical approach for variceal obliteration with low rates of variceal recurrence, rebleeding and development of gastric varices. Furthermore, it was associated with frequent development of portal hypertensive gastropathy.

Improved survival with the patients with variceal bleed

Variceal hemorrhage is a major cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. Over the past two decades new treatment modalities have been introduced in the management of acute variceal bleeding (AVB) and several recent studies have suggested that the outcome of patients with cirrhosis and AVB has improved. Improved supportive measures, combination therapy which include early use of portal pressure reducing drugs with low rates of adverse effects (somatostatin, octerotide or terlipressin) and endoscopic variceal ligation has become the first line treatment in the management of AVB. Short-term antibiotic prophylaxis, early use of lactulose for prevention of hepatic encephalopathy, application of early transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic shunts (TIPS), fully covered self-expandable metallic stent in patients for AVB may be useful in those cases where balloon tamponade is considered. Early and wide availability of liver transplantation has changed the armamentarium of the clinician for patients with AVB. High hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) >20 mmHg in AVB has become a useful predictor of outcomes and more aggressive therapies with early TIPS based on HVPG measurement may be the treatment of choice to reduce mortality further.

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.

Application of endoscopy in improving survival of cirrhotic patients with acute variceal hemorrhage

Playing a central role in the modern multidisciplinary management of acute gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage, endoscopy is essential to stratify patient at risk, control active hemorrhage, and prevent first as well as recurrent bleeding. Before endoscopic procedure, antibiotic prophylaxis along with vasoactive medication is now routine practice. Intravenous erythromycin effectively cleanses stomach and may improve the quality of endoscopy. The timing of endoscopy should be on an urgent basis as delay for more than 15 hours after presentation is associated with mortality. Active variceal bleeding on endoscopy in a patient with hepatic decompensation heralds poor prognosis and mandates consideration of aggressive strategy with early portosystemic shunting. Band ligation has become the preferred modality to control and prevent bleeding from esophageal varices, although occasionally sclerotherapy may still be used to achieve hemostasis. Addition of pharmacotherapy with nonselective beta blockade to endoscopic ligation has become the current standard of care in the setting of secondary prophylaxis but remains controversial with inconsistent data for the purpose of primary prophylaxis. Gastric varices extending from esophagus may be treated like esophageal varices, whereas variceal obliteration by tissue glue is the endoscopic therapy of choice to control and prevent bleeding from fundic and isolated gastric varices.

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

BACKGROUND

The results of variceal band ligation (VBL) in patients with advanced liver disease are unknown. Cyanoacrylate injection (CI) might have a better outcome than VBL in the treatment of esophageal varices (EV) in these patients.

AIM

To compare VBL and CI in the treatment of EV in patients with advanced liver disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-eight patients with medium or large EV and Child-Pugh index of at least eight were randomized into two groups: VBL (n=20) and CI (n=18). The patients were followed-up for at least 6 months after the end of treatment. Main outcomes were eradication, bleeding, mortality, complication, and recurrence rates.

RESULTS

Variceal eradication rates were similar in the VBL and CI groups (90 vs. 72%, P=0.39). Mean number of sessions until eradication was 3.17 and 3, respectively. Bleeding episodes until eradication were equally observed in both groups (P=0.17). Mortality (55 vs. 56%, P=0.52) and major complication rates (5 and 17%, P=0.32) were similar. Chest pain with dysphagia was more frequent in the CI group (55.6 vs. 10%, P=0.004). A higher risk of variceal recurrence was observed in the CI group (33 vs. 57%, P=0.04).

CONCLUSION

No significant differences between the VBL and CI groups were observed in the treatment of EV in patients with advanced liver disease regarding mortality, variceal eradication, and major complications rates. However, minor complications and variceal recurrence were significantly more common in the CI group. In addition, there was a clear trend toward more bleeding episodes in patients included in the CI group.

Benefit of combination β-blocker and endoscopic treatment to prevent variceal rebleeding: A meta-analysis

AIM: To determine whether the association of β-blockers with endoscopic treatment is superior to endoscopic treatment alone for the secondary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding.

METHODS: Randomised controlled trials comparing sclerotherapy (SCL) with SCL plus β-blockers (BB) or banding ligation (BL) with BL plus BB were identified. Main outcomes were overall and 6, 12 and 24 mo rebleeding rates, as well as overall and 6, 12 and 24 mo mortality. Two statistical methods were used: Yusuf-Peto, and Der Simonian and Laird. Inter-trial heterogeneity was systematically taken into account.

RESULTS: Seventeen randomised controlled trials were included, 14 with SCL and 3 with BL. Combination β-blocker and endoscopic treatment significantly reduced rebleeding rates at 6, 12 and 24 mo and overall [odds ratio (OR): 2.20, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.69-2.85, P < 0.0001] compared to endoscopic treatment alone. Mortality at 24 mo was significantly lower for the combined treatment group (OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.16-2.90, P = 0.009), as well as overall mortality (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.03-1.98, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION: Combination therapy should thus be recommended as the first line treatment for secondary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding.

Management of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage

Acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (AEVH) is a severe complication of portal hypertension. Its management has rapidly evolved in recent years. Traditional methods included vasoconstrictor and balloon tamponade. Vasoconstrictors were shown to control approximately 80% of the bleeding episodes and are generally used as a first-line therapy. Following the use of vasoconstrictors, endoscopic therapy is often used to arrest the bleeding varices and prevent early rebleeding. A meta-analysis showed that the combination of vasoconstrictor and endoscopic therapy is superior to endoscopic therapy alone for controlling AEVH. Balloon tamponade may be used to achieve temporary control of the hemorrhage in case of severe bleeding. A transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt may be needed in patients with refractory acute variceal hemorrhage. Surgical intervention is now widely contraindicated during acute variceal hemorrhage, except for patients with good liver reserve. Conversely, apart from the control of acute variceal hemorrhage, prophylactic antibiotics were shown to be helpful in the prevention of bacterial infection and to prevent early variceal rebleeding. With the introduction of new treatment modalities and the measures taken to manage patients with AEVH, the mortality due to AEVH has significantly decreased in recent years.

The role of endoscopy in secondary prophylaxis of esophageal varices

The rate of rebleeding from esophageal varices remains appreciably high after cessation of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Many measures have been developed to prevent the occurrence of rebleeding. Endoscopic therapy plays a central role in the prevention of variceal bleeding. In the 1980s sclerotherapy played a pivotal role in the prevention of variceal rebleeding, but now yields to endoscopic variceal ligation. Compared with sclerotherapy, a lower incidence of complications and rebleeding is associated with banding ligation. On the other hand, beta-blockers are also noted to be able to reduce portal pressure, leading to the reduction of variceal rebleeding. The reduction of variceal rebleeding with beta-blockers plus nitrates is as effective as banding ligation. The combination of beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation has proven to be more efficacious than banding ligation alone in the reduction of variceal rebleeding and is the treatment of choice for patients with failure in either medical or endoscopic therapy. Patients with repeated rebleeding despite endoscopic therapies may require transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt or shunt operation as a rescue therapy.

Management of acute variceal bleeding: emphasis on endoscopic therapy

Acute variceal bleeding is one of the most serious and feared complications of patients with portal hypertension. The most common cause of portal hypertension is advanced liver disease. Patients with esophageal and gastric varices may bleed because of a progressive increase in portal pressure that causes them to grow and finally rupture. This article will review the current management strategies for acute variceal bleeding with emphasis on endoscopic therapy for the acute episode.

Addition of propranolol and isosorbide mononitrate to endoscopic variceal ligation does not reduce variceal rebleeding incidence

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and propranolol are standard secondary prophylaxis therapies for variceal bleeding. Addition of isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) to propranolol improves its hemodynamic efficacy; we investigated whether a combination of EVL and propranolol/ISMN was more effective than EVL alone for secondary prophylaxis.

METHODS

Patients with a prior variceal bleed were randomly assigned to groups given a combination (n = 88) of EVL, propranolol (dose titrated to reduce heart rate to 55 beats per minute), and ISMN (40 mg/day) or EVL alone (n = 89). Primary end points were rebleeding or death; secondary end points were new complications of portal hypertension or serious adverse effects.

RESULTS

The actuarial probabilities of rebleeding 2 years after therapy were 27% in the combination group and 31% in the EVL alone group (P = .822). Two patients in the combination group and 3 patients in the EVL alone group died during the study period (P = .682); no deaths were caused by variceal hemorrhage. In cirrhotic patients, the actuarial probabilities of rebleeding were 24% and 30%, respectively (P = .720). Secondary end points were comparable between groups. In multivariate analyses, presence of ascites (P = .003), serum albumin < 3.3 g/dL (P = .008), and hepatic venous pressure gradients > or = 18 mm Hg (P = .009) were independent risk factors for variceal rebleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

EVL alone is sufficient to prevent variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients with history of variceal bleeding. Addition of propranolol and ISMN to EVL does not reduce the incidence of variceal rebleeding but increases severe adverse effects. Risk factors for rebleeding include ascites, low serum albumin, and high hepatic venous pressure gradients.

Improved survival in patients receiving medical therapy as compared with banding ligation for the prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding

Both medical therapy and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) have proven to be comparable in the prevention of variceal rebleeding. However, the long-term results are still lacking. Our previous study enrolled 121 patients with history of esophageal variceal bleeding and randomized to receive EVL (EVL group, 60 patients) or drug therapy, nadolol plus isosorbide-5-mononitrate (N+I) (N+I group, 61 patients) to prevent variceal rebleeding. The EVL group received ligation regularly until variceal obliteration. The N+I group received N+I during the study period. Patients were followed for up to 8 years. After a median follow-up of 82 months, recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding developed in 28 patients (47%) in the EVL group and 49 patients (80%) in the N+I group (P = 0.001). Recurrent bleeding from esophageal varices occurred in 18 patients (30%) in the EVL group and 39 patients (64%) in the N+I group. The actuarial probability of rebleeding from esophageal varices was lower in the EVL group (P = 0.001). A total of 42 patients of the EVL group and 30 patients of the N+I group died (P = 0.013). The multivariate Cox analysis indicated that age, serum albumin, presence of encephalopathy, and treatment were the factors predictive of mortality.

CONCLUSION

Our long-term follow-up study showed that combination of N+I therapy was inferior to banding ligation in the reduction of variceal rebleeding, but with enhanced survival.

Avoiding pitfalls: what an endoscopist should know in liver transplantation--part 1

Cirrhosis is associated with global homodynamic changes, but the majority of the complications are usually manifested through the gastrointestinal tract. Therefore, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy has become an important tool in the multidisciplinary approach in the management of these patients. With the ever growing number of cirrhotic patients requiring pre-transplant endoscopic management, it is imperative that the community endoscopists are well aware of the pathologies that can be potentially noted on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Their timely management is also considered to have the utmost importance in being able to stabilize the patient until their transfer to a Liver Transplant Center. The aim of this manuscript is to give a comprehensive update and review of various endoscopic findings that a non-transplant endoscopist will encounter in the pre-transplant setting.

Inadequate use of proton-pump inhibitors in patients with liver cirrhosis

OBJECTIVES

Patients with liver cirrhosis have a high prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms. The use of antiacid therapy (AAT) in these patients is unexplored. We aimed to assess the use of AAT in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

A total of 128 consecutive cirrhotic patients were evaluated for the use of and indications for acid-suppressive agents. Upper endoscopy findings and concomitant medications were registered. A validated questionnaire was used to measure the gastrointestinal symptom burden. Adequate indications for AAT were those strongly supported by the medical literature.

RESULTS

Forty percent (n=51) of patients with cirrhosis were on AAT. Thirty-seven percent (n=19) of these had adequate and 63% (n=32) inadequate indications for AAT. The major inadequate indication was previous variceal bleeding (34%). Patients with inadequate indications for AAT had increased severity of symptoms of indigestion compared with patients without AAT (P<0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that inadequate use of AAT was independently related only to previous variceal bleeding and the number of concomitant medications.

CONCLUSION

AAT is used by a large proportion of patients with cirrhosis. In the majority, therapy is based on inadequate indications, mainly continuous long-term therapy after previous variceal bleeding. Patients with an inadequate indication for acid-suppressive medications have increased severity of symptoms of indigestion, indicating that gastrointestinal symptoms might be a factor contributing to proton-pump inhibitor consumption in these patients.

Proton pump inhibitors in cirrhosis: Tradition or evidence based practice?

Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPI) are very effective in inhibiting acid secretion and are extensively used in many acid related diseases. They are also often used in patients with cirrhosis sometimes in the absence of a specific acid related disease, with the aim of preventing peptic complications in patients with variceal or hypertensive gastropathic bleeding receiving multidrug treatment. Contradicting reports support their use in cirrhosis and evidence of their efficacy in this condition is poor. Moreover there are convincing papers suggesting that acid secretion is reduced in patients with liver cirrhosis. With regard to Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) infection, its prevalence in patients with cirrhosis is largely variable among different studies, and it seems that H pylori eradication does not prevent gastro-duodenal ulcer formation and bleeding. With regard to the prevention and treatment of oesophageal complications after banding or sclerotherapy of oesophageal varices, there is little evidence for a protective role of PPI. Moreover, due to liver metabolism of PPI, the dose of most available PPIs should be reduced in cirrhotics. In conclusion, the use of this class of drugs seems more habit related than evidence-based eventually leading to an increase in health costs.