Letter: Shorter duration of intravenous terlipressin for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis-A promising find

This article is linked to Vaishnav et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17868 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17982

Review article: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding - review of current evidence and implications for management

BACKGROUND

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common emergency requiring hospital-based care. Advances in care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases have led to improvements in clinical outcomes.

AIMS

To provide a detailed, evidence-based update on major aspects of care across pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases.

METHODS

We performed a structured bibliographic database search for each topic. If a recent high-quality meta-analysis was not available, we performed a meta-analysis with random effects methods and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Pre-endoscopic management of UGIB includes risk stratification, a restrictive red blood cell transfusion policy unless the patient has cardiovascular disease, and pharmacologic therapy with erythromycin and a proton pump inhibitor. Patients with cirrhosis should be treated with prophylactic antibiotics and vasoactive medications. Tranexamic acid should not be used. Endoscopic management of UGIB depends on the aetiology. For peptic ulcer disease (PUD) with high-risk stigmata, endoscopic therapy, including over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) and TC-325 powder spray, should be performed. For variceal bleeding, treatment should be customised by severity and anatomic location. Post-endoscopic management includes early enteral feeding for all UGIB patients. For high-risk PUD, PPI should be continued for 72 h, and rebleeding should initially be evaluated with a repeat endoscopy. For variceal bleeding, high-risk patients or those with further bleeding, a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt can be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of acute UGIB should include treatment plans for pre-endoscopic, endoscopic and post-endoscopic phases of care, and customise treatment decisions based on aetiology and severity of bleeding.

Letter: Shorter duration of intravenous terlipressin for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis-A promising find. Author's reply

This article is linked to Vaishnav et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17868 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17976

Editorial: Shorter course of intravenous terlipressin in acute variceal bleeding-the promise, controversies and future directions. Author's reply

This article is linked to Vaishnav et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17868 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17882

Beta-blockers and cirrhosis: Striking the right balance

Decompensated cirrhosis is associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality. Variceal hemorrhage (VH) further increases the risk of mortality, and of future variceal bleed events. Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are effective therapy for primary and secondary prophylaxis of VH and have become the cornerstone of pharmacologic therapy in cirrhosis. Beta-blockers are associated with reduced overall mortality and GI-bleeding related mortality in patients with decompensated cirrhosis; they may also confer hemodynamically independent beneficial effects. Long-term treatment with beta-blockers may improve decompensation-free survival in compensated cirrhosis with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). Carvedilol more effectively lowers the hepatic vein portal gradient than traditional NSBBs and has been shown to improve survival in compensated cirrhosis. Treatment goals in compensated cirrhosis with CSPH should focus on early utilization of beta-blockers to prevent decompensation and reduce mortality.

Editorial: Shorter course of intravenous terlipressin in acute variceal bleeding - the promise, controversies and future directions

This article is linked to Vaishnav et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17868 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17893

Real-world comparison of terlipressin vs. octreotide as an adjuvant treatment in the management of variceal bleeding

Variceal bleeding is a major complication and the leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of terlipressin vs octreotide as an adjuvant to endoscopic management of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding in a real-time scenario. We reviewed the medical records of patients with esophageal variceal bleeding from January 2005 to December 2020 at our tertiary care Aga Khan University Hospital. Mortality was assessed after 6 weeks. A total of 842 patients with variceal bleed were evaluated. 624 patients (74.1%) and 218 patients (25.9%) received Terlipressin and Octreotide respectively. On multiple regression analysis, cardiac events during hospital stay (OR: 11.22), presence of Porto-systemic encephalopathy (OR: 3.79), and elevated bilirubin levels at the time of presentation were found to be independent risk factors for increased six weeks mortality. Moreover, cardiac events during hospital stay (OR: 3.26), Porto-systemic encephalopathy at presentation (OR: 3.06), and octreotide administration (OR: 1.80) were identified as independent risk factors for increased length of hospital stay. Terlipressin and Octreotide have similar outcomes in terms of control of bleeding, hospital stay, mortality, and side effects when used as adjuvant therapy for the management of variceal bleeding.

Comparison of 1-day versus 3-day intravenous terlipressin in cirrhosis patients with variceal bleeding: A pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In cirrhosis patients with acute variceal bleeding (AVB), the optimal duration of vasoconstrictor therapy after endoscopic haemostasis is unclear.

AIMS

We aimed to compare efficacy of 1-day versus 3-day terlipressin therapy in cirrhosis patients with AVB post-endoscopic intervention. The primary objective was to compare rebleeding at 5 days between the two arms. Secondary objectives included rebleeding and mortality rates at 6 weeks.

METHODS

In this open-label, randomised controlled trial, cirrhosis patients with AVB were randomised to either 1-day or 3-day terlipressin therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 150 cirrhosis patients with AVB were recruited to receive either 1 day (n = 75) or 3 days (n = 75) of terlipressin therapy. One patient from 1-day arm was excluded. Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 149 patients. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Rebleeding at 5 days: 3 (4.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4-9.0) versus 4 (5.3%; 95% CI: 2.0-10.0), risk difference (RD) p = 0.726 and 5-day mortality rates: 1 (1.4%; 95% CI: 0-7.3) versus 1 (1.3%; 95% CI: 0.2-7.0), RD p = 0.960 were similar. Rebleeding at 42 days: 9 (12.2%; 95% CI: 7.0-20.0) versus 10 (13.3%; 95% CI: 7.0-20.0), RD p = 0.842 and mortality at 42 days: 5 (6.8%; 95% CI: 3.0-10.0) versus 4 (5.3%; 95% CI: 2.0-10.0), RD p = 0.704 were also similar. Patients in the 1-day terlipressin therapy arm experienced significantly fewer adverse effects compared with those receiving 3 days of terlipressin therapy: 28 (37.8%) versus 42 (56%), p = 0.026.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that 1 day of terlipressin therapy is associated with similar 5-day and 42-day rebleeding rates, 42-day mortality and an overall superior safety profile compared with 3-day of terlipressin therapy. These findings require to be validated in double-blinded, larger, multiethnic and multicentre studies across the various stages of cirrhosis (CTRI/2019/10/021771).

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Propranolol Use During Ligation Program for Secondary Prophylaxis of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) plus nonselective β-blockers (NSBB) is the standard of care for secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB). This trial aimed to compare the rebleeding rates between EVL plus NSBB till eradication of esophageal varices (EEV) and EVL plus long-term NSBB.

METHODS

After control of acute EVB, patients with cirrhosis were randomized into 2 groups, with group A patients receiving EVL plus propranolol till EEV, while group B patients received standard of care with continuation of propranolol. Recurrent varices were ligated at follow-up endoscopy in both groups.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 23.0 months in group A (n = 106) and 23.6 months in group B (n = 106). Twelve patients (11.3%) in group A and 11 (10.4%) in group B had recurrent EVB. The difference in rebleeding rates and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was 0.9% (-7.5% to 9.3%). The upper 95% CI bound of the difference was within the margin of 13.2%, and the noninferiority of group A to group B was established. Thirty-eight patients (35.8%) in group A and 40 (37.7%) in group B had further decompensation, with the difference (95% CI) of -1.9% (-14.9% to 11.1%). Twenty-four patients (22.6%) in group A and 26 (24.5%) in group B expired, with the difference (95% CI) in mortality rates of -1.9% (-13.3% to 9.5%).

DISCUSSION

EVL plus propranolol till EEV was noninferior to EVL plus continuing propranolol in secondary prophylaxis of EVB, but the impact on further decompensation and transplantation-free survival deserved further investigation.

Low screening rates and high prevalence of osteoporosis in cirrhosis: A real-world retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with cirrhosis are at increased risk for osteoporosis, and those who suffer a fracture are at high risk for mortality. Despite this, osteoporosis is often overlooked and undertreated. This study aimed to evaluate osteoporosis screening, management, and adverse osteoporosis medication events in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of adult outpatients with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis seen in single health system over a 6-year period. Patient demographics, liver and bone health comorbidities, DEXA scan results, and medications were abstracted.

RESULTS

In total, 5398 patients met criteria. The cohort was predominately white (79.1%) and older (age 59). 44.4% were female. 64.6% had decompensated cirrhosis. Median MELD-Na score was 12.8. 23.5% had a DEXA scan ordered, approximately 50% completed this test. Patients who were older, female, white, with more severe liver disease, and other osteoporosis risk factors were more likely to have a DEXA scan ordered. 48.5% of patients had osteopenia and 30.2% had osteoporosis on DEXA scan. Only 22.6% of patients with osteoporosis received treatment, most commonly oral bisphosphonates. Oral bisphosphonate prescription was not associated with variceal bleeding (8.4% without vs. 4.8% with, p = 0.487).

CONCLUSION

A minority of patients with cirrhosis were screened for osteoporosis. The majority screened had osteopenia or osteoporosis on DEXA scan. Less than a quarter of patients with osteoporosis were started on treatment. Real-world experience of oral bisphosphonate use did not reveal higher rates of gastrointestinal bleeding. There is room for improvement in all aspects of bone health care in cirrhosis.

Improving primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding by adapting therapy to the clinical stage of cirrhosis. A competing-risk meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Non-selective β-blockers (NSBBs) and endoscopic variceal-ligation (EVL) have similar efficacy preventing first variceal bleeding. Compensated and decompensated cirrhosis are markedly different stages, which may impact treatment outcomes. We aimed to assess the efficacy of NSBBs vs EVL on survival in patients with high-risk varices without previous bleeding, stratifying risk according to compensated/decompensated stage of cirrhosis.

METHODS

By systematic review, we identified RCTs comparing NSBBs vs EVL, in monotherapy or combined, for primary bleeding prevention. We performed a competing-risk, time-to-event meta-analysis, using individual patient data (IPD) obtained from principal investigators of RCTs. Analyses were stratified according to previous decompensation of cirrhosis.

RESULTS

Of 25 RCTs eligible, 14 failed to provide IPD and 11 were included, comprising 1400 patients (656 compensated, 744 decompensated), treated with NSBBs (N = 625), EVL (N = 546) or NSBB+EVL (N = 229). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Overall, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs (subdistribution hazard-ratio (sHR) = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.75-1.49) and with EVL + NSBBs vs either monotherapy, with low heterogeneity (I2  = 28.7%). In compensated patients, mortality risk was higher with EVL vs NSBBs (sHR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.11-2.77) and not significantly lower with NSBBs+EVL vs NSBBs, without heterogeneity (I2  = 0%). In decompensated patients, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs and with NSBBs+EVL vs. either monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with compensated cirrhosis and high-risk varices on primary prophylaxis, NSBBs significantly improved survival vs EVL, with no additional benefit noted adding EVL to NSBBs. In decompensated patients, survival was similar with both therapies. The study suggests that NSBBs are preferable when advising preventive therapy in compensated patients.

Management of type 2 diabetes in patients with compensated liver cirrhosis: Short of evidence, plenty of potential

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in patients with compensated cirrhosis is challenging due to hypoglycemic risk, altered pharmacokinetics, and the lack of robust evidence on the risk/benefit ratio of various drugs. Suboptimal glycemic control accelerates the progression of cirrhosis, while the frequent coexistence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) with T2D highlights the need for a multifactorial therapeutic approach.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in Medline, Google Scholar and Scopus databases till July 2023, using relevant keywords to extract studies regarding the management of T2D in patients with compensated cirrhosis.

RESULTS

Metformin, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) are promising treatment options for patients with T2D and compensated liver cirrhosis, offering good glycemic control with minimal risk of hypoglycemia, while their pleiotropic actions confer benefits on NAFLD and body weight, and decrease cardiorenal risk. Sulfonylureas cause hypoglycemia, thus should be avoided, while in specific studies, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors have been correlated with increased risk of decompensation and variceal bleeding. Despite the benefits of thiazolidinediones in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, concerns about edema and weight gain limit their use in compensated cirrhosis. Insulin does not exert hepatotoxic effects and can be administered safely in combination with other drugs; however, the risk of hypoglycemia should be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of new hepatoprotective diabetes drugs into clinical practice, including tirzepatide, SGLT2i, and GLP-1 RA, sets the stage for future trials to investigate the ideal therapeutic regimen for people with T2D and compensated cirrhosis.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Use of Vasoactive Drugs and Intravenous Albumin in Cirrhosis: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

Cirrhosis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States and worldwide. It consists of compensated, decompensated, and further decompensated stages; median survival is more than 15 years, 2 years, and 9 months for each stage, respectively. With each stage, there is progressive worsening of portal hypertension and the vasodilatory-hyperdynamic circulatory state, resulting in a progressive decrease in effective arterial blood volume and renal perfusion. Vasoconstrictors reduce portal pressure via splanchnic vasoconstriction and are used in the management of variceal hemorrhage. Intravenous (IV) albumin increases effective arterial blood volume and is used in the prevention of acute kidney injury (AKI) and death after large-volume paracentesis and in patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP). The combination of vasoconstrictors and albumin is used in the reversal of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS-AKI), the most lethal complication of cirrhosis. Because a potent vasoconstrictor, terlipressin, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and because recent trials have explored use of IV albumin in other settings, it was considered that a best practice update would be relevant regarding the use of vasoactive drugs and IV albumin in the following 3 specific scenarios: variceal hemorrhage, ascites and SBP, and HRS.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership. It underwent internal peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Some of the statements are unchanged from published guidelines because of lack of new evidence in the literature. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality and evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Vasoactive drugs should be initiated as soon as the diagnosis of variceal hemorrhage is suspected or confirmed, preferably before diagnostic and/or therapeutic endoscopy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: After initial endoscopic hemostasis, vasoactive drugs should be continued for 2-5 days to prevent early rebleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Octreotide is the vasoactive drug of choice in the management of variceal hemorrhage based on its safety profile. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: IV albumin should be administered at the time of large-volume (>5 L) paracentesis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: IV albumin may be considered in patients with SBP. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Albumin should not be used in patients (hospitalized or not) with cirrhosis and uncomplicated ascites. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Vasoconstrictors should not be used in the management of uncomplicated ascites, after large-volume paracentesis or in patients with SBP. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: IV albumin is the volume expander of choice in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and ascites presenting with AKI. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Vasoactive drugs (eg, terlipressin, norepinephrine, and combination of octreotide and midodrine) should be used in the treatment of HRS-AKI, but not in other forms of AKI in cirrhosis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Terlipressin is the vasoactive drug of choice in the treatment of HRS-AKI and use of concurrent albumin can be considered when accounting for patient's volume status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Terlipressin treatment does not require intensive care unit monitoring and can be administered intravenously through a peripheral line. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Terlipressin use is contraindicated in patients with hypoxemia and in patients with ongoing coronary, peripheral, or mesenteric ischemia, and should be used with caution in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure grade 3. The benefits may not outweigh the risks in patients with serum creatinine >5 mg/dL and in patients listed for transplantation with a Model for End-stage Liver Disease ≥35.

Predicting survival in patients with 'non-high-risk' acute variceal bleeding receiving β-blockers+ligation to prevent re-bleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is the treatment of choice for high-risk acute variceal bleeding (AVB; i.e., Child-Turcotte-Pugh [CTP] B8-9+active bleeding/C10-13). Nevertheless, some 'non-high-risk' patients have poor outcomes despite the combination of non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation for secondary prophylaxis. We investigated prognostic factors for re-bleeding and mortality in 'non-high-risk' AVB to identify subgroups who may benefit from more potent treatments (i.e., TIPS) to prevent further decompensation and mortality.

METHODS

A total of 2,225 adults with cirrhosis and variceal bleeding were prospectively recruited at 34 centres between 2011-2015; for the purpose of this study, case definitions and information on prognostic indicators at index AVB and on day 5 were further refined in low-risk patients, of whom 581 (without failure to control bleeding or contraindications to TIPS) who were managed by non-selective beta-blockers/endoscopic variceal ligation, were finally included. Patients were followed for 1 year.

RESULTS

Overall, 90 patients (15%) re-bled and 70 (12%) patients died during follow-up. Using clinical routine data, no meaningful predictors of re-bleeding were identified. However, re-bleeding (included as a time-dependent co-variable) increased mortality, even after accounting for differences in patient characteristics (adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio: 2.57; 95% CI 1.43-4.62; p = 0.002). A nomogram including CTP, creatinine, and sodium measured at baseline accurately (concordance: 0.752) stratified the risk of death.

CONCLUSION

The majority of 'non-high-risk' patients with AVB have an excellent prognosis, if treated according to current recommendations. However, about one-fifth of patients, i.e. those with CTP ≥8 and/or high creatinine levels or hyponatremia, have a considerable risk of death within 1 year of the index bleed. Future clinical trials should investigate whether elective TIPS placement reduces mortality in these patients.

IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS

Pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement improves outcomes in high-risk acute variceal bleeding; nevertheless, some 'non-high-risk' patients have poor outcomes despite the combination of non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation. This is the first large-scale study investigating prognostic factors for re-bleeding and mortality in 'non-high-risk' acute variceal bleeding. While no clinically meaningful predictors were identified for re-bleeding, we developed a nomogram integrating baseline Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, creatinine, and sodium to stratify mortality risk. Our study paves the way for future clinical trials evaluating whether elective transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement improves outcomes in presumably 'non-high-risk' patients who are identified as being at increased risk of death.

Optimal resting heart rate and ascites-related death in patients with cirrhosis and ascites using nonselective beta-blockers (ORCA)

Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) may exacerbate ascites by impairing cardiac function. This study evaluated the impact of achieving a heart rate target of 55-60 beats per minute (bpm) on ascites-related death and complications from worsening ascites in patients with cirrhosis and diuretic-responsive ascites using NSBBs. A retrospective study was conducted at the Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University (2012-2022) and analyzed patients with cirrhosis and diuretic-responsive ascites using NSBBs (propranolol/carvedilol) for variceal bleeding prophylaxis. The outcomes were incidence of ascites-related death and complications from worsening ascites, comparing the achievable target group (heart rate 55-60 bpm) and the unachievable target group (heart rate >60 bpm). A total of 206 patients were included in the study, with a median follow-up time of 20 months. The patients were divided into an achievable target group (n = 75, median heart rate = 58.0 bpm) and an unachievable target group (n = 131, median heart rate = 73.6 bpm). Propranolol was the most used NSBB (95.1%). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for ascites-related death from spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) or refractory ascites (RA) or hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) or hepatic encephalopathy (HE) showed no difference between the groups (adjusted HR 0.59 [0.23-1.54]; p = 0.28). Additionally, no significant difference was found in the incidence of complications between groups, including SBP, RA, HRS, and HE. Achieving a heart rate target of 55-60 bpm with NSBBs for variceal bleeding prophylaxis is safe in patients with diuretic-responsive ascites and cirrhosis.

How to manage splanchnic vein thrombosis in patients with liver disease

Liver cirrhosis and splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) are strictly correlated. Portal vein thrombosis, the most common location of SVT, is frequently diagnosed in liver cirrhosis (pooled incidence 4.6 per 100 patient-years), and liver cirrhosis is a common risk factor for SVT (reported in 24%-28% of SVT patients). In cirrhosis-associated SVT, anticoagulant treatment reduces mortality rates, thrombosis extension, and major bleeding, and increases the rates of recanalization, compared to no treatment. Achieving vessel recanalization improves the prognosis of cirrhotic patients by reducing liver-related complications (such as variceal bleeding, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy). Anticoagulation should be therefore routinely prescribed to cirrhotic patients with acute SVT unless contraindicated by active bleeding associated with hemodynamic impairment or by excessively high bleeding risk. Of note, early treatment is associated with higher probability of achieving vessel recanalization. The standard treatment consists of low-molecular-weight heparin, followed by oral anticoagulants (eg, vitamin K antagonists or direct oral anticoagulants), if not contraindicated by severe liver dysfunction. Cirrhotic patients with SVT should be treated long-term (especially if candidate for liver transplantation) since liver cirrhosis is a persistent risk factor for recurrent thrombosis. In this review, we discuss the management of SVT in patients with liver cirrhosis, with a focus on the anticoagulant treatment in terms of indications, timing, drugs, duration, and particular scenarios, such as gastroesophageal varices and thrombocytopenia.

Complete Heart Block After Low Dose Octreotide Infusion for Esophageal Variceal Bleeding

Cirrhosis and chronic liver disease cause a myriad of systemic health problems mostly caused by the presence of portal hypertension. Esophageal varices are one result of portal hypertension. They can rupture and bleed, which can be catastrophic in already coagulopathic liver failure patients. We present a patient who presented with decompensated liver failure for transplant. He developed a severe and refractory gastrointestinal bleed and was put on an octreotide infusion to increase splanchnic flow and decrease portal pressures. He subsequently developed complete heart block. Understanding the mechanisms of octreotide is imperative due to its frequent use in medically complex patients.

Terlipressin in the management of liver disease

INTRODUCTION

Terlipressin is a synthetic vasopressin analog which has been recently approved in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome. Terlipressin stimulates vasopressin receptors located on the smooth muscle vasculature of the splanchnic circulation and renal tubules which results in splanchnic vasoconstriction with improved renal perfusion and antidiuretic activity, respectively.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we discuss available data regarding the FDA approved use of terlipressin, safety, and tolerability, as well as highlight alternative uses in chronic liver disease currently still under investigation.

EXPERT OPINION

Terlipressin is more efficacious compared to other vasoactive agents including midodrine octreotide and norepinephrine in reversal of hepatorenal syndrome and improves short-term survival. Other potential applications of terlipressin's vasoconstrictor actions reported in the literature include management of variceal hemorrhage and other complications of portal hypertension.

Quantifying the benefit of nonselective beta-blockers in the prevention of hepatic decompensation: A Bayesian reanalysis of the PREDESCI trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Beta-blockers have been studied for the prevention of variceal bleeding and, more recently, for the prevention of all-cause decompensation. Some uncertainties regarding the benefit of beta-blockers for the prevention of decompensation remain. Bayesian analyses enhance the interpretation of trials. The purpose of this study was to provide clinically meaningful estimates of both the probability and magnitude of the benefit of beta-blocker treatment across a range of patient types.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

We undertook a Bayesian reanalysis of PREDESCI incorporating 3 priors (moderate neutral, moderate optimistic, and weak pessimistic). The probability of clinical benefit was assessed considering the prevention of all-cause decompensation. Microsimulation analyses were done to determine the magnitude of the benefit. In the Bayesian analysis, the probability that beta-blockers reduce all-cause decompensation was >0.93 for all priors. The Bayesian posterior hazard ratios (HR) for decompensation ranged from 0.50 (optimistic prior, 95% credible interval 0.27-0.93) to 0.70 (neutral prior, 95% credible interval 0.44-1.12). Exploring the benefit of treatment using microsimulation highlights substantial treatment benefits. For the neutral prior derived posterior HR and a 5% annual incidence of decompensation, at 10 years, an average of 497 decompensation-free years per 1000 patients were gained with treatment. In contrast, at 10 years 1639 years per 1000 patients were gained from the optimistic prior derived posterior HR and a 10% incidence of decompensation.

CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blocker treatment is associated with a high probability of clinical benefit. This likely translates to a substantial gain in decompensation-free life years at the population level.

Comparison of carvedilol and propranolol for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleed in cirrhotic patients

Cirrhosis continues to claim the lives of people worldwide every year. Esophageal variceal bleeding due to portal hypertension is one of the dreadful complications. We compared carvedilol with propranolol to find better drug that can prevent index variceal bleed in cirrhotic patients. 220 patients with known esophageal varices on upper GI endoscopy and no previous history of GI bleed were randomized to group A (Carvedilol) and group B (Propranolol). Bleeding occurred in 37.14% and 59.04% of the patients in group A (carvedilol) and B (propranolol) respectively (p=0.02). Bleeding was more common among patients with large as compared to small varices (67.04% versus 35.48% respectively). Among patients with large varices bleeding occurred in 58.13% and 75.55% of patients in group A and B respectively while in small varices, bleeding rate was 25% and 46.66% respectively (p=0.03). Regarding the response of beta blockers, mean pulse rate dropped from 85.15±5.49 to 59.8±2.39 per minute in Group A while in Group B it was reduced to 60.5±4.21 from 83.8±5.33 per minute at 3 years follow up. No significant difference found in the side effect profile. Our study showed that carvedilol was more effective than propranolol in primary prevention of variceal hemorrhage.

Beta-blockers in the era of precision medicine in patients with cirrhosis

For decades, non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) have been the standard of care for the primary and secondary prevention of bleeding from oesophageal varices. However, several questions regarding the best clinical use of NSBBs remain unanswered and new data continue to emerge. Herein, we aim to delineate the therapeutic window of NSBBs in cirrhosis from a more individualised perspective. We address the current controversy of widening the therapeutic window and prescribing NSBBs to all patients with clinically significant portal hypertension. Although transient elastography is useful to rule-in clinically significant portal hypertension, we lack robust data supporting the use of NSBBs in patients without varices. While most data are based on propranolol, accumulating evidence suggests that carvedilol is superior and should be the first-line treatment until the decompensated stage. The clinical risk-to-benefit ratio appears to deteriorate in advanced decompensated stages and the risk of harm is high in patients with refractory ascites, low blood pressure and renal impairment, which clinically define closure of the therapeutic window. We also critically review non-invasive surrogates and biomarkers for predicting the haemodynamic response to NSBBs and confirm that the absence of reliable non-invasive methods is one of the main challenges facing the field.

Anticoagulation therapy early is safe in portal vein thrombosis patients with acute variceal bleeding: a multi-centric randomized controlled trial

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and acute variceal bleeding (AVB) are frequent complications of cirrhosis. The efficacy, safety, and timing of anticoagulant treatment in cirrhotic patients with PVT and AVB are contentious issues. We aimed to establish the safety and efficacy of initiating nadroparin calcium-warfarin sequential (NWS) anticoagulation therapy early after esophageal variceal band ligation within PVT patients having cirrhosis and AVB. Cirrhotic patients having AVB and PVT who underwent EVL were included and randomly allocated to either the NWS therapy group (1-month nadroparin calcium by subcutaneous injection following 5-month warfarin through oral administration, n = 43) or the control group (without any anticoagulation therapy, n = 43). The primary endpoint was the rate of PVT recanalization. Secondary endpoints included major bleeding events mainly referring to variceal rebleeding (5-day failure, 14-day, 4-week, 6-week, and 6-month rebleeding rates) and mortality after EVL. The overall recanalization (complete and partial) rate in the NWS therapy group was significantly higher than that in the control group (67.4% vs. 39.5%, P = 0.009). Low Child-Pugh score (P = 0.039, OR: 0.692, 95% CI 0.488-0.982), D-dimer < 2.00 ug/mL (P = 0.030, OR: 3.600, 95% CI 1.134-11.430), and NWS anticoagulation therapy (P = 0.002, OR: 4.189, 95% CI 1.660-10.568) were the predictors of PVT recanalization through univariate analysis of binary logistic regression. NWS anticoagulation therapy (P = 0.003, OR: 4.506, 95% CI 1.687-12.037) was the independent factor of recanalization through multivariate analysis. Nobody bled except for variceal rebleeding. Five-day failure and 14-day rebleeding were zero. There were no significantly different in 4-week (2.3% vs. 4.7%, P = 1.000), 6-week (4.7% vs. 9.3%, P = 0.672) and 6-month rebleeding (18.6% vs. 20.9%, P = 0.787) between the two groups. There was no mortality during six months follow-up. Low serum albumin (P = 0.011, OR: 0.844, 95% CI 0.741-0.962), high MELD score (P = 0.003, OR: 1.564, 95% CI 1.167-2.097) and Child-Pugh score (P = 0.006, OR: 1.950, 95% CI 1.206-3.155) were predictors of rebleeding by univariate analysis of binary logistic regression analysis. The Child-Pugh score (7 [6-8] vs. 6 [5-7], P = 0.003) and albumin levels (33.93 ± 5.30 vs. 37.28 ± 4.32, P = 0.002) were improved in the NWS therapy group at six months. In PVT patients with cirrhosis and AVB, starting NWS anticoagulation therapy early after EVL was safe and effective. It has the potential to raise albumin levels and improve liver function.

[Practice guidance for the use of terlipressin for liver cirrhosis-related complications (2021)]

Liver cirrhosis is a major global health burden worldwide due to its high risk of morbidity and mortality. Role of terlipressin for the management of liver cirrhosis related complications has been recognized during recent years. This paper aims to develop evidence-based clinical practice guidance on the use of terlipressin for liver cirrhosis related complications. Hepatobiliary Study Group of Chinese Society of Gastroenterology of Chinese Medical Association and Hepatology Committee of Chinese Research Hospital Association have invited gastroenterologists, hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, surgeons, and clinical pharmacists to formulate the clinical practice guidance based on comprehensive literature review and experts' clinical experiences. Overall, 10 major statements regarding efficacy and safety of terlipressin in liver cirrhosis were proposed. Terlipressin can be beneficial for the management of cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). However, the evidence regarding the use of terlipressin in cirrhotic patients with ascites, post-paracentesis circulatory dysfunction, and bacterial infections and in those undergoing hepatic resection and liver transplantation remains insufficient. Terlipressin-related adverse events, mainly including gastrointestinal symptoms, electrolyte disturbance, and cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events, should be closely monitored. The current clinical practice guidance supports the use of terlipressin for gastroesophageal variceal bleeding and HRS in liver cirrhosis. High-quality studies are needed to further clarify its potential effects in other liver cirrhosis related complications.

[Analysis of change in esophageal varices and clinical characteristics in hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis after antiviral therapy]

Objective: To clarify the effect and related factors of antiviral therapy on the change of esophageal varices in patients with hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis. Methods: Fifty-two cases with hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis who underwent endoscopy before and after antiviral therapy were selected from prospective cohorts. Patients were divided into three groups: no, mild, and moderate-severe based on the degree of esophageal varices. The changes in the severity of esophageal varices in each group were compared after antiviral therapy. Clinical characteristics (platelet, liver and kidney function, liver stiffness, and virological response) of patients with different regressions were analyzed. Measurement data were analyzed by independent sample t-test, one-way ANOVA, Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis H test, and Chi-Square test was used for count data. Results: All patients received entecavir-based antiviral therapy. The median treatment time was 3.1 (2.5-4.4) years. The proportion of patients without esophageal varices increased from 30.8% to 51.9%, the proportion of mild esophageal varices decreased from 40.4% to 30.8%, and the proportion of patients with moderate-to-severe esophageal varices decreased from 28.8% to 17.3% (χ²=14.067, P=0.001). A total of 40.4% of patients had esophageal varices regression, and 13.5% had esophageal varices progression. The progression rate was significantly higher in patients with moderate-severe esophageal varices than patients with mild and no esophageal varices (χ²=28.126, P<0.001), and 60.0% of patients with moderate-severe esophageal varices still remained in moderate-severe state after antiviral treatment. Baseline platelet count and 5-year mean change rates were significantly lower in patients with progressive moderate-to-severe esophageal varices than in those without progression (+3.3% vs. +34.1%, Z=7.00, P=0.027). Conclusion: After effective antiviral treatment, 40.4% of patients with hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis combined with esophageal varices has obtained esophageal varices regression, but those with moderate to severe esophageal varices still have a considerable risk of progression while receiving mono antiviral treatment only. Thrombocytopenia and without significant improving are the clinical signs of progression risk after receiving antiviral treatment.

Impact of colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms on antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis and variceal bleeding

Background

The efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent rebleeding or infection after variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis colonized with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) is unknown.

Methods

In this retrospective study, patients with liver cirrhosis and endoscopically confirmed variceal bleeding who were treated at a tertiary care center in Germany and were screened for MDROs at the time of bleeding were eligible for inclusion. Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis was evaluated in patients stratified according to microbiological susceptibility testing.

Results

From 97 patients, the majority had decompensated liver cirrhosis (median MELD Score 17) and ACLF was present in half of the patients (47.4%). One third of patients were colonized with MDRO at baseline. De-novo infection until day 10 or the combination of de-novo infection or rebleeding were comparable among both groups (p = 0.696 and p = 0.928, log-rank-test). Risk of de-novo infection or rebleeding was not significantly increased in patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis that did not cover the MDRO found upon baseline screening. Acute-on-chronic liver failure at baseline was the strongest and only independent risk factor that was associated with both outcomes (OR 5.52, 95%-CI 1.48–20.61, p = 0.011 and OR 11.5, 95%-CI 2.70–48.62, p<0.001). Neither MDRO colonization at baseline nor covering all detected MDRO with antibiotic prophylaxis (i.e. “adequate” prophylaxis) impacted transplant-free survival. Again, the presence of ACLF was the strongest independent risk factor associated with mortality (OR 9.85, 95%-CI 3.58–27.12, p<0.0001).

Conclusion

In this study, MDRO colonization did not increase the risk of rebleeding, infections nor death, even if antibiotic prophylaxis administered did not cover all MDRO detected at MDRO screening. Patients with ACLF had an increased risk of bleeding, infections and death.

[Efficacy Evaluation of Three Endoscopic Therapies of Isolated Gastric Varices with Modified Tissue Adhesive]

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of three endoscopic therapies of isolated gastric varices (IGV) with modified tissue adhesive.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted with the clinical data of 73 IGV patients who were treated between January 2008 and December 2019 at Beijing Ditan Hospital. Patient clinical data on age, sex, etiology, biochemistry findings, Child-Pugh classification, the type of spontaneous shunt, preoperative bleeding history, and the presence or absence of liver cancer were collected. The three therapies evaluated were endoscopic intravenous injection of tissue glue combined with lauromacrogol, endoscopic clip-assisted intravenous injection of tissue glue combined with lauromacrogol, and endoscopic clip and LOOP-assisted intravenous injection of tissue glue combined with lauromacrogol. Their respective clinical treatment outcomes, including ectopic embolism rate, survival rate, rebleeding rate, amount of lauromacrogol and tissue glue used, the number of endoscopic clips used, and the number of times of the procedure the patient underwent, were evaluated.

Results

In the patient baseline data, Child-Pugh grade, preoperative thrombus formation, and the presence or absence of liver cancer, showed significant difference between the three therapies ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the rates of ectopic embolism among the three methods ( P>0.05), but no ectopic embolism occurred after endoscopic clip-assisted intravenous injection of tissue glue combined with lauromacrogol, or after endoscopic clip and LOOP-assisted intravenous injection of tissue glue combined with lauromacrogol. There was no significant difference in the survival rate, the rebleeding rate, amount of lauromacrogol and tissue glue used for the three therapies, but there was significant difference in the number of endoscopic clips used and the number of times the procedure was conducted within one year ( P<0.05).

Conclusion

The two endoscopic therapies of intravenous injection of modified tissue glue, one assisted by clip and the other assisted by clip and LOOP, can help reduce the number of procedures IGV patients undergo within one year.

Should we continue surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma and gastroesophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis and cured HCV infection?

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and variceal bleeding are among the most common causes of liver-related mortality in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV)-induced cirrhosis. Current guidelines recommend HCC and gastroesophageal varices (GEV) surveillance in patients with HCV infection and cirrhosis. However, since the recent introduction of direct-acting antivirals, most patients with cirrhosis are now cured of their chronic HCV infection. As virological cure is considered to substantially reduce the risk of cirrhosis-related complications, this review discusses the current literature concerning the surveillance of HCC and GEV in patients with HCV-induced cirrhosis with a focus on the setting following sustained virological response.

β-blockers in advanced cirrhosis: More friend than enemy

Nonselective beta-adrenergic blocker (NSBB) therapy for the prevention of initial and recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with gastroesophageal varices has been used for the past four decades. NSBB therapy is considered the cornerstone of treatment for varices, and has become the standard of care. However, a 2010 study from the group that pioneered β-blocker therapy suggested a detrimental effect of NSBBs in decompensated cirrhosis, especially in patients with refractory ascites. Since then, numerous additional studies have incompletely resolved whether NSBBs are deleterious, although more recent evidence weighs against a harmful effect. The possibility of a "therapeutic window" has also been raised. We aimed to review the literature to analyze the pros and cons of using NSBBs in patients with cirrhosis, not only with respect to bleeding or mortality but also to other potential benefits and risks. β-blockers are highly effective in preventing first bleeding and recurrent bleeding. Furthermore, NSBBs improve congestion/ischemia of the gut mucosa, decrease intestinal permeability, and therefore indirectly alleviate systemic inflammation. β-blockers shorten the electrocardiographic prolonged QTc interval and may also decrease the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. On the other hand, the possibility of deleterious effects in cirrhosis has not been completely eliminated. NSBBs may be associated with an increased risk of portal vein thrombosis, although this could be correlational artifact. Overall, we conclude that β-blockers in cirrhosis are much more of a friend than enemy.

Precision medicine in variceal bleeding: Are we there yet?

Variceal bleeding is one of the most feared complications of portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis because of its deleterious impact on prognosis. Adequate management of patients at risk of developing variceal bleeding includes the prevention of the first episode of variceal bleeding and rebleeding, and is crucial in modifying prognosis. The presence of clinically significant portal hypertension is the main factor determining the risk of development of varices and other liver-related decompensations; therefore, it should be carefully screened for and monitored. Treating patients with clinically significant portal hypertension based on their individual risk of portal hypertension-related bleeding undoubtedly improves prognosis. The evaluation of liver haemodynamics and liver function can stratify patients according to their risk of bleeding and are no question useful tools to guide therapy in an individualised manner. That said, recent data support the idea that tailoring therapy to patient characteristics may effectively impact on prognosis and increase survival in all clinical scenarios. This review will focus on evaluating the available evidence supporting the use of individual risk characteristics for clinical decision-making and their impact on clinical outcome and survival. In primary prophylaxis, identification and treatment of patients with clinically significant portal hypertension improves decompensation-free survival. In the setting of acute variceal bleeding, the risk of failure and rebleeding can be easily predicted, allowing for early escalation of treatment (i.e. pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt) which can improve survival in appropriate candidates. Stratifying the risk of recurrent variceal bleeding based on liver function and haemodynamic response to non-selective beta-blockers allows for tailored treatment, thereby increasing survival and avoiding adverse events.

Peptide-based therapy in portal hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the use of gastrointestinal peptides in the management of portal hypertension.

RECENT FINDINGS

Vasoactive peptides are commonly used in the management of acute variceal hemorrhage and hepatorenal syndrome, which are portal hypertensive complications of cirrhosis. The main vasoactive peptides that are used are somatostatin and its long-acting analogue octreotide, and vasopressin and its analogue terlipressin. Early initiation of vasoactive peptides in the management of acute variceal hemorrhage and hepatorenal syndrome is associated with improved outcomes. Octreotide is the available vasoactive peptide in the Unites States. Recent developments and ongoing clinical trials may improve our understanding of hepatorenal syndrome and influence the use of vasoactive peptides, particularly terlipressin.

SUMMARY

Here, we review the literature on the use of vasoactive peptides in the management of acute variceal hemorrhage and hepatorenal syndrome.

Safety and efficacy of risedronate for patients with esophageal varices and liver cirrhosis: a non-randomized clinical trial

Despite the high prevalence of osteoporosis in liver cirrhosis, the indication of bisphosphonates for patients with esophageal varices has been avoided due to risk of digestive mucosal damage. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the safety profile of risedronate treatment for patients with osteoporosis, liver cirrhosis and esophageal varices with low risk of bleeding. A total of 120 patients were allocated into two groups according to their bone mineral density measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. In the intervention group, 57 subjects with osteoporosis received oral risedronate at 35 mg weekly plus daily calcium and vitamin D supplementation. In the control group, 63 subjects with osteopenia received only calcium and vitamin D. The groups received the treatment for one year and underwent surveillance endoscopies at six and 12 months, as well as a control dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry after a 12-month follow-up. The study received Institutional Review Board approval. The groups had not only comparable Model for End-stage Liver Disease score and esophageal varices degree, but also similar incidence of digestive adverse effects. A significant improvement was achieved in the intervention group in the lumbar spine T score (p < 0.001). The results suggest that risedronate may be safely used in liver cirrhosis and esophageal varices with low bleeding risk under endoscopic surveillance, thus allowing bone mass recovery.

Band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including haemorrhage from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal haemorrhage commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Prevention is therefore important. Following numerous randomised clinical trials demonstrating efficacy of non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation in decreasing the incidence of variceal haemorrhage, primary prophylaxis of variceal haemorrhage in adults has become the established standard of care. Hence, band ligation and beta-blockers have been proposed to be used as primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of band ligation compared with any type of beta-blocker for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (February 2019), CENTRAL (December 2018), PubMed (December 2018), Embase Ovid (December 2018), LILACS (Bireme; January 2019), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science; December 2018). We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications and performed a manual search from the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conferences (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from 2009 to 2018. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. We planned to also include quasi-randomised and other observational studies retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials for report of harm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials using standard Cochrane methodologies.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised clinical trials assessing band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. There is a need for well-designed, adequately powered randomised clinical trials to assess the benefits and harms of band ligation versus beta-blockers for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. Those randomised clinical trials should include patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality, failure to control bleeding, and adverse events.

Diuretic window hypothesis in cirrhosis: Changing the point of view

Since the 1970s, non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) have been used to prevent variceal upper bleeding in advanced cirrhotic patients. However, several recent studies have raised the doubt about the benefit of NSBB in end-stage cirrhotic patients. In fact, they suggested a detrimental effect in these patients that even reduced survival. All of these studies have been assembled to compose the “window therapy hypothesis”, in which NSBB would have traditional indication to be initiated to prevent variceal upper bleeding; however, treatment should be stopped (or not be initiated) in patients with end-stage cirrhosis. NSBB would reduce the cardiac reserve of these patients, worsening systemic perfusion and prognosis. However, it should be emphasized that these studies present important bias issues, and their results also suggested that diuretic treatment may also be behind the effects observed. In this opinion review, we changed the point of view from NSBB to diuretic treatment, based on a physiopathogenic approach of circulatory parameters of cirrhotic patients studied, and based on diuretic effect in blood pressure lowering and in other hypervolemic disease, as heart failure. We suggest a “diuretic window hypothesis”, composed by an open window in hypervolemic phase, an attention window when patient present in a normal plasma volume phase, and a closed window during the plasma hypovolemic phase.

[Use of cyanoacrylate as a treatment of gastric varices in a public hospital in Lima - Peru]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the therapeutic success of endoscopic therapy with N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate and to determine the re- bleeding and mortality rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective analytical observational study of 47 cases of patients with gastric varices who were treated with N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate, using a 1: 1 mixture with lipiodol between 2013 and 2017 in a level III public hospital in Lima - Peru. The therapeutic indication was active hemorrhage, primary or secondary prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Of the 47 patients, 5 (10.6%) had active hemorrhage, control was obtained in all cases, 24 (51.1%) had stigmas of recent bleeding during endoscopy. Secondary prophylaxis was performed in 16 (34%) patients and primary prophylaxis in 2 (4.7%). 59.6% required a single session with a total volume of cyanoacrylate (ml / patient) of 1.28 ± 0.44. The endoscopic finding was GOV-2 in 78.7% of the cases, IGV-1 in 12.8% and GOV-1 in 8.5%. Seven patients (14.8%) presented late re- bleeding, with successful new therapy in 6 of them, one dying due to therapy failure. Of the six (12.76%) patients who died in total, 5 (83.3%) were due to other causes. No adverse events related to the therapy were reported. No adverse events were reported. Variceal obturation was observed in 28 (59.5%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic management of gastric varices with cyanoacrylate is a safe and effective treatment, with low recurrence and mortality rates.

Management of betablocked patients after sustained virological response in hepatitis C cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines do not address the post–sustained virological response management of patients with baseline hepatitis C virus (HCV) cirrhosis and oesophageal varices taking betablockers as primary or secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. We hypothesized that in some of these patients portal hypertension drops below the bleeding threshold after sustained virological response, making definitive discontinuation of the betablockers a safe option.

AIM

To assess the evolution of portal hypertension, associated factors, non-invasive assessment, and risk of stopping betablockers in this population.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were age > 18 years, HCV cirrhosis (diagnosed by liver biopsy or transient elastography > 14 kPa), sustained virological response after direct-acting antivirals, and baseline oesophageal varices under stable, long-term treatment with betablockers as primary or secondary bleeding prophylaxis. Main exclusion criteria were prehepatic portal hypertension, isolated gastric varices, and concomitant liver disease. Blood tests, transient elastography, and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were performed. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) was measured five days after stopping betablockers. Betablockers could be stopped permanently if gradient was < 12 mmHg, at the discretion of the attending physician.

RESULTS

Sample comprised 33 patients under treatment with propranolol or carvedilol: median age 64 years, men 54.5%, median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score 9, Child-Pugh score A 77%, median platelets 77.000 × 10³/µL, median albumin 3.9 g/dL, median baseline transient elastography 24.8 kPa, 88% of patients received primary prophylaxis. Median time from end of antivirals to gradient was 67 wk. Venous pressure gradient was < 12 mmHg in 13 patients (39.4%). In univariate analysis the only associated factor was a MELD score decrease from baseline. On endoscopy, variceal size regressed in 19/27 patients (70%), although gradient was ≥ 12 mmHg in 12/19 patients. The elastography area under receiver operating characteristic for HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg was 0.62. Betablockers were stopped permanently in 10/13 patients with gradient < 12 mmHg, with no bleeding episodes after a median follow-up of 68 wk.

CONCLUSION

Portal hypertension dropped below the bleeding threshold in 39% of patients more than one year after antiviral treatment. Endoscopy and transient elastography are inaccurate for reliable detection of this change. Stopping betablockers permanently seems uneventful in patients with a gradient < 12 mmHg.

Current and future pharmacological therapies for managing cirrhosis and its complications

Due to the restrictions of liver transplantation, complication-guided pharmacological therapy has become the mainstay of long-term management of cirrhosis. This article aims to provide a complete overview of pharmacotherapy options that may be commenced in the outpatient setting which are available for managing cirrhosis and its complications, together with discussion of current controversies and potential future directions. PubMed/Medline/Cochrane Library were electronically searched up to December 2018 to identify studies evaluating safety, efficacy and therapeutic mechanisms of pharmacological agents in cirrhotic adults and animal models of cirrhosis. Non-selective beta-blockers effectively reduce variceal re-bleeding risk in cirrhotic patients with moderate/large varices, but appear ineffective for primary prevention of variceal development and may compromise renal function and haemodynamic stability in advanced decompensation. Recent observational studies suggest protective, haemodynamically-independent effects of beta-blockers relating to reduced bacterial translocation. The gut-selective antibiotic rifaximin is effective for secondary prophylaxis of hepatic encephalopathy; recent small trials also indicate its potential superiority to norfloxacin for secondary prevention of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Diuretics remain the mainstay of uncomplicated ascites treatment, and early trials suggest alpha-adrenergic receptor agonists may improve diuretic response in refractory ascites. Vaptans have not demonstrated clinical effectiveness in treating refractory ascites and may cause detrimental complications. Despite initial hepatotoxicity concerns, safety of statin administration has been demonstrated in compensated cirrhosis. Furthermore, statins are suggested to have protective effects upon fibrosis progression, decompensation and mortality. Evidence as to whether proton pump inhibitors cause gut-liver-brain axis dysfunction is conflicting. Emerging evidence indicates that anticoagulation therapy reduces incidence and increases recanalisation rates of non-malignant portal vein thrombosis, and may impede hepatic fibrogenesis and decompensation. Pharmacotherapy for cirrhosis should be implemented in accordance with up-to-date guidelines and in conjunction with aetiology management, nutritional optimisation and patient education.

Terlipressin for the treatment of acute variceal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is life-threatening. We aimed to systematically review the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of terlipressin for AVB in liver cirrhosis.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The reference list was also hand-searched. Using a random-effect model, we combined the data obtained according to the different time points when the events developed. Odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were calculated. Quality of evidence was evaluated by the GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

Thirty randomized controlled trials with 3344 patients were included. Compared with no vasoactive drug, terlipressin significantly improved the control of bleeding within 48 hours (OR = 2.94, P = .0008) and decreased the in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.31, P = .008). Compared with somatostatin, terlipressin had a significantly higher risk of complications (OR = 2.44, P = .04). Compared with octreotide, terlipressin had a significantly inferior control of bleeding within 24 hours (OR = 0.37, P = .007). Compared with vasopressin, terlipressin had a significantly lower risk of complications (OR = 0.15, P = .02). Compared with terlipressin combined with endoscopic variceal ligation, terlipressin alone had significantly higher 5-day treatment failure (OR = 14.46, P = .01) and transfusion requirements within 49 to 120 hours (WMD = 1.20, P = .002). No outcome was significantly different between terlipressin and sclerotherapy. Compared with balloon tamponade, terlipressin significantly decreased the 30-day rebleeding (OR = 0.05, P = .001) and transfusion requirements (WMD = -2.70, P = .02). Quality of evidence was very low to moderate.

CONCLUSION

Our findings were in accordance with the current recommendations regarding terlipressin for the treatment of AVB in cirrhosis. However, due to low quality of evidence, further studies are recommended.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha1-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha1-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha1-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha1-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha1-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha1-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha1-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha1-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha1-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha1-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha₁-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I² values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I² = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I² = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I² = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha1-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.