BACKGROUND & AIMS: Esophageal variceal bleed is a major problem in patients with cirrhosis. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) has been shown to be equal to or better than propranolol in preventing first bleed. Carvedilol is a non-selective β blocker with alpha-1 adrenergic blocker activity. Hemodynamic studies have shown carvedilol to be more effective than propranolol at reducing portal pressure. We compared efficacy of carvedilol with EVL for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleed.
METHODS: Cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices were randomized to carvedilol 12.5mg daily or EVL at three university hospitals of Pakistan. End points were esophageal variceal bleeding, death or liver transplant.
RESULTS: Two hundred and nine patients were evaluated. Eighty two and eighty six patients were randomized in carvedilol and EVL arms respectively. Mean age was 48 ± 12.2 years; 122 (72.7%) were males; 89.9% had viral cirrhosis; mean Child-Pugh score was 7.3 ± 1.6 and mean follow up was 13.3 ± 12.1 months (range 1-50 months). Both EVL and carvedilol groups had comparable variceal bleeding rates (8.5% vs. 6.9%), bleed related mortality (4.6% vs. 4.9%) and overall mortality (12.8% vs. 19.5%) respectively. Adverse events in carvedilol group were hypotension (n=2), requiring cessation of therapy, while transient nausea (n=18) and dyspnea (n=30) resolved spontaneously. In the EVL arm, post banding ulcer bleed (n=1) and chest pain (n=17), were termed as serious adverse events while transient dysphagia (n=58) resolved without treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Although our study is underpowered, the findings suggest that carvedilol is probably not superior to EVL in preventing first variceal bleed in patients with viral cirrhosis.
Administration of nonselective beta-blockers in prophylaxis of first variceal bleeding is not suitable for all patients. Thus, we evaluated endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVBL) in primary prevention of bleeding in patients with cirrhosis and large esophageal varices. A total of 73 consecutive patients with liver cirrhosis and large esophageal varices without a history of gastrointestinal bleeding were randomized to receive either EVBL or propranolol and were followed for up to 18 months. Forty patients underwent EVBL and 33 patients received propranolol. Variceal bleeding occurred in 2 patients in the EVBL (5%) and in 2 patients in the propranolol group (6%, NS). The 18 month actuarial risk for first variceal bleed was 5% in the EVBL (95% CI, 0-12%) and 20% in the propranolol group (95% CI, 0-49%, NS). The actuarial probability of death at 18 months of follow-up was 5% (95% CI, 0-11%) in the EVBL group and 7% (95% CI, 0-17%, NS) in the propranolol arm. In conclusion, EVBL was an effective and safe alternative to propranolol in primary prophylaxis of bleeding in patients with large esophageal varices.
BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal variceal bleeding is a common complication of portal hypertension. Current guidelines recommend thorn-blockers for primary prophylaxis. However, evidence suggests that endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) reduce bleeding episodes.
AIMS: To compare endoscopic EVL with propranolol (PPL) for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding.
METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial. Over a 9-year period, 75 patients with cirrhosis and high-risk esophageal varices (HREV) were recruited and allocated to EVL (n=39) or PPL (n=36). Primary outcome was variceal bleeding. Secondary outcomes were survival, source of bleeding and serious adverse events. Analyses were made by intention-to-treat.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar. Medium follow-up was 1647+/-1096 days. complete follow-up was achieved in 85% of patients. Variceal bleeding occurred in 12% of EVL and in 25% of PPL group (p=0.17). The actuarial risks of bleeding after 2 years were similar in both groups. Overall mortality was 51% in EVL and 33% in PPL group (p=0.17). Patients in the EVL group showed a lower rate of esophageal variceal bleeding (5.1% v/s 25%, p=0.027) and a higher rate of subcardial variceal bleeding compared with PPL group (7.7% v/s 0%, p=0.027). Serious adverse events related to EVL occurred in 2 patients, including 1 death.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study supports that PPL should be considered the first choice in primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding offering similar effects and lower severe adverse events compared with EVL.
Objective: To compare the efficacy of propranolol, propranolol with nitrate, band ligation, and band ligation with propranolol and nitrate for the prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding. Study Design: A prospective randomized trial. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sheikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore, from November 2003 to July 2005. Methodology: One hundred and sixty cirrhotic patients with esophageal variceal bleeding were randomized to four treatment groups (propranolol, propranolol plus isosorbide mononitrate, band ligation, band ligation plus propranolol and nitrate) with 40 patients in each group. Patients were followed for 6 months after the enrolment of last patient. Primary end points were recurrence of esophageal variceal bleeding and death. Treatment complications were noted. Results: Four treatment groups were comparable regarding baseline characteristics. Esophageal variceal rebleeding occurred in 22% patients in band ligation plus drugs group, 26% patients in drug combination group, 31% patients in banding group and 38% patients in propranolol group (p=0.41). Difference in mortality rates was also not significant. Conclusion: There was no significant difference between treatment groups in prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding.
Both medical therapy and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) have proven to be comparable in the prevention of variceal rebleeding. However, the long-term results are still lacking. Our previous study enrolled 121 patients with history of esophageal variceal bleeding and randomized to receive EVL (EVL group, 60 patients) or drug therapy, nadolol plus isosorbide-5-mononitrate (N+I) (N+I group, 61 patients) to prevent variceal rebleeding. The EVL group received ligation regularly until variceal obliteration. The N+I group received N+I during the study period. Patients were followed for up to 8 years. After a median follow-up of 82 months, recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding developed in 28 patients (47%) in the EVL group and 49 patients (80%) in the N+I group (P = 0.001). Recurrent bleeding from esophageal varices occurred in 18 patients (30%) in the EVL group and 39 patients (64%) in the N+I group. The actuarial probability of rebleeding from esophageal varices was lower in the EVL group (P = 0.001). A total of 42 patients of the EVL group and 30 patients of the N+I group died (P = 0.013). The multivariate Cox analysis indicated that age, serum albumin, presence of encephalopathy, and treatment were the factors predictive of mortality. CONCLUSION: Our long-term follow-up study showed that combination of N+I therapy was inferior to banding ligation in the reduction of variceal rebleeding, but with enhanced survival.
Journal»Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society
Whether beta-blockers (BB) or banding is the best therapy for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding is subject to debate. A randomized comparison between the 2 treatments was performed in candidates for liver transplantation (LT). A total of 62 patients with Child-Turcotte-Pugh B-C cirrhosis and high risk varices received propranolol (31) or variceal banding (31). The primary endpoint was variceal bleeding. There were 2 variceal hemorrhages (6.5%) in the banding group, related to postbanding ulcers, and 3 (9.7%) in the propranolol group (P = not significant [n.s.]). Deaths and bleeding related deaths were 3 and 1 for banding and 3 and 2 for BB, respectively (P = n.s.). A total of 14 patients underwent LT in the banding group and 10 in the propranolol group (P = n.s.). Adverse events were 2 postbanding ulcer bleedings in ligated patients (1 fatal) and 5 were intolerant to propranolol (P = n.s.). Mean costs per patient were higher with banding than with propranolol treatment (4,289 +/- 285 vs. 1,425 +/- 460 U.S. dollars, P < 0.001). In conclusion, propranolol and banding are similarly effective in reducing the incidence of variceal bleeding in candidates for LT, but ligation can be complicated by fatal bleeding and is more expensive. Our results suggest that banding should not be utilized as primary prophylaxis in transplant candidates who can be treated with BB.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Bleeding varices is a major complication of liver cirrhosis; 30 70% may die from the effect of the first bleed. Primary prophylax~is is therefore an important therapeutic goal. The aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Variceal Ligation (EVL) with medical treatment for the prevention of the first episode of variceal bleeding. METHODS: 156 cirrhotic patients with risky varices were prospectively randomized to receive either EVL (51 patients), propranolol (52 patients) or Isosorbid-5-Mono-Nitrate (ISMN) (53 patients). And follow-up for 18 24 months for bleeding episodes and or mortality. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the 3 groups as regard sex, age, Child score, etiology of cirrhosis and grade of varices. Bleeding occurred in 4 (7.5%) in EVL group, 18 (34.6%) in ISMN group and 13 (25.5%) in propranolol group. There was no difference in mortality when the 3 groups were compared (7.5% vs 11.5% vs 9.8%), P 0.78. Complications or side effects were reported in 28.3% in EVL compared to 34.6% with ISMN and 39.2% for propranolol. CONCLUSION: In patients with high risk esophageal varices, EVL is more effective and safer than propranolol which is more effective than ISMN for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding.
BACKGROUND: After variceal bleeding, cirrhotic patients should receive secondary prophylaxis. AIM: To compare nadolol plus 5-isosorbide mononitrate (5-ISMN) with endoscopic band ligation. The end points were rebleeding, treatment failure and death. METHODS: One hundred and nine cirrhotic patients with a recent variceal bleeding were randomized: nadolol plus 5-ISMN in 57 patients and endoscopic band ligation in 52 patients. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 17 and 19 months in nadolol plus 5-ISMN and endoscopic band ligation groups, respectively. No differences were observed between groups in upper rebleeding (47% vs. 46%), variceal rebleeding (40% vs. 36%), failure (32% vs. 22%), major complications (7% vs. 13.5%) and death (19% vs. 20%), respectively. The actuarial probability of remaining free of rebleeding, failure and deaths were similar in both groups. Time to rebleeding shows that endoscopic band ligation patients had an early rebleed, with a median of 0.5 month (95% CI: 0.0-4.2) compared with patients from nadolol plus 5-ISMN, 7.6 months (95% CI: 2.9-12.3, P < 0.013). Multivariate analysis indicated that outcome-specific predictive factor(s) for rebleeding was Child A vs. B + C (P < 0.01); for failure was Child A vs. B + C (P < 0.02); and for death ascites (P < 0.01) and rebleeding (P < 0.02). CONCLUSION: This trial suggests no superiority of endoscopic band ligation over nadolol plus 5-ISMN mononitrate for the prevention of rebleeding in cirrhotic patients.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) with propranolol in prophylaxis on the rate of first esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: A prospective, randomized trial was conducted in 100 cirrhotic patients with no history of previous upper gastrointestinal bleeding and with esophageal varices endoscopically judged to be at high risk of hemorrhage. The end-points of the study were bleeding and death. RESULTS: Life-table curves showed that prophylactic EVL and propranolol were similarly effective for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding (11/50 [22%]vs 12/50 [24%]; P = 0.68) and overall mortality (14/50 [28%]vs 12/50 [24%]; P = 0.49). The 2-year cumulative bleeding rate was 18% (9/50) in the EVL group and 16% (8/50) in the propranolol group. The 2-year cumulative mortality rate was 28% (14/50) in the EVL group and 24% (12/50) in the propranolol group. Comparison of Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to death of both groups showed no significant difference in mortality in both groups (P = 0.86). Patients undergoing EVL had few treatment failures and died mainly of hepatic failure. In the propranolol group, the mean daily dosage of the drug was 68.2 +/- 32.8 mg, which was sufficient to reduce the pulse rate by 25%. 20% of patients withdrew from propranolol treatment due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis EVL is as effective and as safe as treatment with propranolol in decreasing the incidence of first variceal bleeding and death in cirrhotic patients with high-risk esophageal varices.
Esophageal variceal bleed is a major problem in patients with cirrhosis. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) has been shown to be equal to or better than propranolol in preventing first bleed. Carvedilol is a non-selective β blocker with alpha-1 adrenergic blocker activity. Hemodynamic studies have shown carvedilol to be more effective than propranolol at reducing portal pressure. We compared efficacy of carvedilol with EVL for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleed.
METHODS:
Cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices were randomized to carvedilol 12.5mg daily or EVL at three university hospitals of Pakistan. End points were esophageal variceal bleeding, death or liver transplant.
RESULTS:
Two hundred and nine patients were evaluated. Eighty two and eighty six patients were randomized in carvedilol and EVL arms respectively. Mean age was 48 ± 12.2 years; 122 (72.7%) were males; 89.9% had viral cirrhosis; mean Child-Pugh score was 7.3 ± 1.6 and mean follow up was 13.3 ± 12.1 months (range 1-50 months). Both EVL and carvedilol groups had comparable variceal bleeding rates (8.5% vs. 6.9%), bleed related mortality (4.6% vs. 4.9%) and overall mortality (12.8% vs. 19.5%) respectively. Adverse events in carvedilol group were hypotension (n=2), requiring cessation of therapy, while transient nausea (n=18) and dyspnea (n=30) resolved spontaneously. In the EVL arm, post banding ulcer bleed (n=1) and chest pain (n=17), were termed as serious adverse events while transient dysphagia (n=58) resolved without treatment.
CONCLUSIONS:
Although our study is underpowered, the findings suggest that carvedilol is probably not superior to EVL in preventing first variceal bleed in patients with viral cirrhosis.
