Prevention of rebleeding from oesophageal varices: two-year follow up of a prospective controlled trial of propranolol in addition to sclerotherapy

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.

Comparison of Therapies for Secondary Prophylaxis of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhosis: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

The decision regarding the optimal secondary prophylactic treatment for esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) in hepatic cirrhosis is controversial. A network meta-analysis was conducted to assess the benefits of various treatments for the secondary prophylaxis of EVB in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

A thorough examination of databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials, was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials up to December 2019. Key primary outcomes included mortality and rebleeding. Within the identified databases, a network meta-analysis was performed. Results were expressed by using a 95% credible interval (CrI) and odds ratios (ORs). The quality of results was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

FINDINGS

Forty-eight trials with 4415 participants with cirrhosis and portal hypertension who had a history of recent variceal bleeding were included. Carvedilol ranked first (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA], 87.4%) in overall survival, and some advantage was suggested; however, the findings were not statistically significant, compared with endoscopic variceal ligation + nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB) (OR, 0.59; CrI, 0.28, 1.3), NSBB + isosorbide mononitrate (OR, 0.67; CrI, 0.33, 1.4), and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) (OR, 0.52; CrI, 0.24, 1.1). NSBB + isosorbide mononitrate (SUCRA, 63.9%) ranked higher than NSBB + endoscopic variceal ligation (SUCRA, 49.6%) in reducing mortality. TIPS (SUCRA, 98.8%) ranked higher than other treatments in reducing rebleeding but did not confer any survival benefit.

IMPLICATIONS

TIPS ranks first in preventing rebleeding of secondary prophylaxis of EVB and carvedilol shows outstanding efficacy in improving survival. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: identifier CRD42019131814.

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.

Pharmacotherapy plus endoscopic intervention is more effective than pharmacotherapy or endoscopy alone in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Previous clinical trials on the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding yielded mixed results regarding the efficacy of endoscopic procedures compared with pharmacotherapy only.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of endoscopic procedures with that of pharmacotherapy in the prevention of mortality and rebleeding.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized, controlled trials of the efficacy of pharmacotherapy and endoscopic therapy. A meta-analysis was performed by using the Comprehensive MetaAnalysis software package. A 2-sided alpha error <.05 was considered statistically significant (P < .05).

PATIENTS

Twenty-five clinical trials with a total of 2159 patients were eligible for meta-analysis.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed for all-cause mortality, mortality from rebleeding, all-cause rebleeding, and rebleeding caused by varices.

RESULTS

Pharmacotherapy was as effective as endoscopic procedures in preventing rebleeding (RR 1.067; 95% CI, 0.865-1.316; P = .546), variceal rebleeding (RR 1.143; 95% CI, 0.791-1.651; P = .476), all-cause mortality (RR 0.997; 95% CI, 0.827-1.202, P = .978), and mortality from rebleeding (RR 1.171; 95% CI, 0.816-1.679; P = .39). Pharmacotherapy combined with endoscopic procedures did not reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.787; 95% CI, 0.587-1.054; P = .108) or mortality caused by rebleeding (RR 0.786; 95% CI, 0.445-1.387; P = .405) compared with endoscopic procedures. However, combination therapy (endoscopic procedure plus pharmacotherapy) significantly reduced the incidence of all rebleeding (RR 0.623; 95% CI, 0.523-0.741; P < .001) and variceal rebleeding (RR 0.601; 95% CI, 0.440-0.820; P < .001).

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity of patient population and different treatment protocols may have affected our meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacotherapy may be as effective as endoscopic therapy in reducing rebleeding rates and all-cause mortality. Pharmacotherapy plus endoscopic intervention is more effective than endoscopic intervention alone.

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.

Variceal ligation plus nadolol compared with ligation for prophylaxis of variceal rebleeding: a multicenter trial

beta-Blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) have proven to be valuable methods in the prevention of variceal rebleeding. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of EVL combined with nadolol versus EVL alone as secondary prophylaxis for variceal bleeding. Patients admitted for acute variceal bleeding were treated during emergency endoscopy with EVL or sclerotherapy and received somatostatin for 5 days. At that point, patients were randomized to receive EVL plus nadolol or EVL alone. EVL sessions were repeated every 10 to 12 days until the varices were eradicated. Eighty patients with cirrhosis (alcoholic origin in 66%) were included (Child-Turcotte-Pugh A, 15%; B, 56%; C, 29%). The median follow-up period was 16 months (range, 1-24 months). The variceal bleeding recurrence rate was 14% in the EVL plus nadolol group and 38% in the EVL group (P = .006). Mortality was similar in both groups: five patients (11.6%) died in the combined therapy group and four patients (10.8%) died in the EVL group. There were no significant differences in the number of EVL sessions to eradicate varices: 3.2 +/- 1.3 in the combined therapy group versus 3.5 +/- 1.3 in the EVL alone group. The actuarial probability of variceal recurrence at 1 year was lower in the EVL plus nadolol group (54%) than in the EVL group (77%; P = .06). Adverse effects resulting from nadolol were observed in 11% of the patients. In conclusion, nadolol plus EVL reduces the incidence of variceal rebleeding compared with EVL alone. A combined treatment could lower the probability of variceal recurrence after eradication.

An assessment of the management of acute bleeding varices: a multicenter prospective member-based study

OBJECTIVE

Bleeding from esophagogastric varices is a major complication of portal hypertension. Despite recent practice guidelines for the management of bleeding esophageal or gastric varices, the widespread application of these measures by gastroenterologists has not been evaluated. The purpose of this study was to continue the concept of membership-based research within diverse practice settings by expanding the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) GI Bleeding Registry to assess the management and outcome of acute variceal bleeding.

METHODS

All ACG members (domestic and foreign) were invited to participate during the 1997 Annual Fall meeting and by mail. Data were collected over 12 months. Information obtained included physician training, practice demographics, patient demographics, disease etiology and severity, clinical presentation, medications, transfusion needs, therapy, complications, and rebleeding within 2 wk.

RESULTS

A total of 93 physicians/centers (79.6% domestic, 26.9% university and affiliated, 3.2% Veterans Affairs) participated. Complete demographic data were available for 725 of the 741 patients enrolled with index bleeding. The median age of these 725 patients was 52 yr and 73.3% were male. The most common single etiology for portal hypertension was cirrhosis (94.3%). The most common causes of cirrhosis were alcohol (56.7%), hepatitis C virus (30.3%), and hepatitis B virus (10.0%). Hemodynamic instability was noted in 60.7% of the patients (22.3% tachycardic, 9.7% orthostatic, 28.7% hypotensive). Index interventions included banding (40.8%; median five bands), sclerotherapy (36.3%), combination banding/sclerotherapy (6.2%), octreotide (52.6%; median 3 days), balloon tamponade (5.5%), transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) (6.6%), liver transplantation (1.1%), surgical shunt (0.7%), and embolization (0.1%). Transfusion of packed red blood cells, fresh frozen plasma, and platelets was given in 83.4%, 44.7%, and 24.6% of the patients with index bleeding, respectively. Median transfusion was four units of packed red blood cells, three units of fresh frozen plasma, and 1.5 units of platelets. Rebleeding occurred in 92 of the 741 patients (12.6%) at a median of 7 days (mean 11 days) and was treated by banding (18.5%; median six bands), sclerotherapy (30.4%), octreotide (63%; median 2 days), balloon tamponade (17.4%), TIPS (15.2%), and surgical shunt (3.3%). Complications from the index bleeding and rebleeding within 2 wk included ulceration (2.6%, 2.2%), aspiration (2.4%, 3.3%), medication side effects (0.8%, 0%), dysphagia (2.3%, 0%), odynophagia (2.2%,0%), encephalopathy (13%,17.4%), and hepatorenal syndrome (2.4%, 2.2%), respectively. After the index bleeding, 46.2% of patients were treated with beta-blockers and 8.2% with nitrates. The majority of patients with index bleeding had Child's B cirrhosis (61.5%). Patients presenting with recurrent bleeding had mostly Child's B (46.7%) or Child's C cirrhosis (44.6%). The overall short-term mortality after index bleeding was 12.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute variceal hemorrhage occurs more often in patients with Child's B and C cirrhosis. Endoscopic banding is the most common single endoscopic intervention. Adjunctive pharmacotherapy is prevalent acutely and after stabilization. Both morbidity and mortality may be lower than reported in previous studies.

Review article: current endoscopic therapeutic options in the management of variceal bleeding

Variceal bleeding is a frequent and life-threatening complication of portal hypertension. The first episode of variceal bleeding is not only associated with a high mortality, but also with a high recurrence rate in those who survive. Therefore, many studies and randomized clinical trials have focused on different therapeutic strategies aiming to prevent the first episode of variceal bleeding (primary prophylaxis), to control haemorrhage during the acute bleeding episode (emergency treatment), and to prevent re-bleeding (secondary prophylaxis). These strategies involve pharmacological, endoscopic, surgical, and interventional radiological modalities. This review concentrates on the clinical aspects of the endoscopic modalities used to treat oesophageal variceal haemorrhage, including variceal injection sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, and the use of tissue adhesives (glue) and their substitutes. We also draw conclusions from the available literature regarding the use of endoscopic modalities in primary prophylaxis, emergency treatment, and secondary prophylaxis of variceal re-bleeding. The management of gastric varices and variceal bleeding during pregnancy is also addressed.

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.

Prevention of recurrent variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND

After control of variceal bleeding, the risk of recurrent bleeding approaches 70%. In secondary prophylaxis, both endoscopic therapy (sclerotherapy or banding ligation) and pharmacotherapy (beta-blockers with or without isosorbide-5-mononitrate) are effective in reducing the rate of rebleeding. The effect on mortality is less striking and in some studies not significant. Although many randomized trials are published, we lack criteria for selection of the optimal therapy in the individual patient in routine daily practice. The designs of published studies are multiple, with differences in timing of randomization, severity and causes of liver disease, definitions of end-points such as rebleeding, duration of follow-up, etc. These variations in addition to variation in the natural history and treatment given in the control groups make comparisons between studies difficult. This review summarizes the endoscopic and pharmacological treatment for the secondary prevention of variceal bleeding.

Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension

Endoscopic treatments for bleeding gastro-oesophageal varices include injection sclerotherapy, variceal obturation with tissue adhesives and variceal rubber band ligation. Today, endoscopic treatments are not recommended for the primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. Acute injection sclerotherapy remains a quick and simple technique for the control of active bleeding from oesophageal varices. Its efficacy may be improved by the early administration of vasoactive drugs. Banding ligation is the optimal endoscopic treatment for the prevention of rebleeding from oesophageal varices. The use of tissue adhesives and thrombin as injectates to treat bleeding fundal gastric varices and oesophageal varices not responding to vasoactive drugs or sclerotherapy is promising but needs further assessment by means of randomized controlled trials.

Review: pharmacotherapeutic agents in the treatment of portal hypertension

Certain vasoactive substances reduce portal pressure in patients or animals with portal hypertension by either inducing splanchnic vasoconstriction or reducing hepatic vascular resistance. Studies have shown that propranolol or nadolol significantly reduce the risk of a first episode of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and increase the survival rate in patients with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices. Isosorbide-5-mononitrate is also effective in the prevention of bleeding. The combination of beta-blockers and nitrates may be more effective than one drug alone. These results show that beta-adrenoceptor antagonists must be used to prevent the first episode of GI bleeding. Beta-blocker administration also significantly reduces the risk of recurrent GI bleeding and increases the survival rate in patients with cirrhosis. Studies have shown that propranolol is as effective as endoscopic sclerotherapy. The combination of a beta-blocker with endoscopic sclerotherapy may be more effective than pharmacological or endoscopic treatment alone for the prevention of rebleeding. Finally, new experimental and clinical studies are needed to improve the pharmacological treatment of portal hypertension.

Propranolol and sclerotherapy in the prevention of gastrointestinal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

A meta-analysis of nine selected randomized trials was performed to compare the effects of propranolol and sclerotherapy in the prevention of rebleeding and on survival in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

Five end points were assessed: rebleeding, esophageal rebleeding, death, death due to bleeding, and adverse events. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method. For each end point, heterogeneity and treatment efficacy were assessed by the Der Simonian and Peto methods. When a significant difference was observed, sensitivity analyses were performed by successive stratification according to treatment duration, type of publication, severity of cirrhosis, and methodological quality.

RESULTS

The mean percentage of patients free of rebleeding, the mean survival rate and the mean percentage of patients free of death from bleeding were not significantly different between patients treated with propranolol and those treated by sclerotherapy. The mean percentage of patients free of variceal rebleeding was 39% in propranolol group and 55% in sclerotherapy group (mean difference: 17%, 95% confidence interval: 9-25%, p < 0.001). The mean percentage of patients free of adverse events was significantly higher in the propranolol group than in the sclerotherapy group (mean difference: 22%, 95% confidence interval: 6-38%, p < 0.007).

CONCLUSION

In patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices, endoscopic sclerotherapy is more effective than propranolol in preventing variceal rebleeding, but the incidence of adverse events is significantly higher with sclerotherapy. There was no difference in survival between the treatments. Propranolol should be considered as a first choice treatment for preventing rebleeding.