Cost-effectiveness analysis of beta-blockers vs endoscopic surveillance in patients with cirrhosis and small varices

The magnitude and correlates of esophageal Varices among newly diagnosed cirrhotic patients undergoing screening fibre optic endoscope before incident bleeding in North-Western Tanzania; a cross-sectional study

Background

Bleeding esophageal varices is a deadly complication of liver cirrhosis. Guidelines recommend an early diagnosis of esophageal varices before incident bleeding by screening all patients diagnosed with liver cirrhosis. Though it has been reported elsewhere that the presence of esophageal varices varies widely among cirrhotic patients this has not been assessed in Tanzania since endoscopy is not readily available for routine use in our setting. This study was designed to determine the prevalence of esophageal varices and assess the utility of clinical parameters in predicting the presence of varices among cirrhotic patients in northwestern Tanzania.

Methods

A cross-sectional analysis of adult patients with liver cirrhosis was done at Bugando Medical Centre. Demographic, clinical, laboratory and endoscopic data were collected and analyzed using STATA 13. The presence of esophageal varices was detected using endoscopic examination and associated factors were assessed by logistic regression. The predictive value of clinical predictors was also assessed by calculating sensitivity and specificity.

Results

A total of 223 patients were enrolled, where 88 (39.5%; 95%CI: 33.0–45.9) had esophageal varices. The varices were independently associated with increased age (OR: 1.02; 95%CI: 1.0–1.04; p = 0.030); increased splenic diameter (OR:1.3; 95%CI:1.2–1.5; p <  0.001), increased portal vein diameter (OR:1.2; 95%CI: 1.07–1.4; p = 0.003), having ascites (OR: 3.0; 95%CI: 1.01–8.7; p = 0.046), and advanced liver disease (OR: 2.9; 95%CI: 1.3–6.7; p = 0.008). PSDR least performed in predicting varices, (AUC: 0.382; 95%CI: 0.304–0.459; cutoff: < 640; Sensitivity: 58.0%; 95%CI: 46.9–68.4; specificity: 57.0%; 95%CI: 48.2–65.5). SPD had better prediction; (AUC: 0.713; 95%CI: 0.646–0.781; cut off: > 15.2 cm; sensitivity: 65.9%; (95% CI: 55–75.7 and specificity:65.2%; 95%CI: 56.5–73.2), followed by PVD, (AUC: 0.6392; 95%CI: 0.566–0.712;cutoff: > 1.45 cm; sensitivity: 62.5%; 95CI: 51.5–72.6; specificity: 61.5%; 95%CI: 52.7–69.7).

Conclusion

Esophageal varices were prevalent among cirrhotic patients, most of which were at risk of bleeding. The non-invasive prediction of varices was not strong enough to replace endoscopic diagnosis. However, the predictors in this study can potentially assist in the selection of patients at high risk of having varices and prioritize them for endoscopic screening and appropriate management.

Propranolol: A 50-Year Historical Perspective

Propranolol is a beta-adrenergic receptor antagonist that was developed by the British scientist Sir James Black primarily for the treatment of angina pectoris, more than 50 years ago. It was not long before several other cardiovascular as well as noncardiovascular therapeutic uses of propranolol were discovered. Propranolol soon became a powerful tool for physicians in the treatment of numerous conditions such as hypertension, cardiac arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, migraine, portal hypertension, anxiety, essential tremors, hyperthyroidism, and pheochromocytoma. Owing to its action at multiple receptor sites, propranolol exerts several central and peripheral effects and is therefore useful in various conditions. Right from reduction in postmyocardial mortality to control of anxiety in performers, propranolol plays an important role in a plethora of medical conditions. Interestingly, even today, newer indications of this age-old drug are being discovered. Moreover, propranolol treatment has been found to be cost-effective when compared to other corresponding treatment options for individual indications. In this article, we attempt to recount the journey of propranolol right from its inception to the present day.