Gai-Qin Li1, Bo Yang2, Jun Liu3, Guang-Chuan Wang4, Hai-Peng Yuan1, Jing-Run Zhao5, Ji-Yong Liu4, Xiao-Pei Li1, Chun-Qing Zhang4. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Tai'an Central Hospital People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Axial and Joints, Tai'an Central Hospital People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Ultrasonic Imaging, Tai'an Central Hospital People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affilliated to Shandong Univercity Jinan, People's Republic of China. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, Liaocheng People's Hospital People's Republic of China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The best therapy to prevent esophageal variceal (EV) rebleeding in cirrhotic patients who are non-responsive to pharmacological therapy have not been determined. AIMS: To evaluate efficacy of a strategy to assign different treatments according to hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG) values to prevent EV rebleeding in non-responders. METHODS: This study is a non-randomized controlled prospective study. 109 cirrhotic patients with EV bleeding who were non-responders based on two HVPG measurements were enrolled and divided two groups: 55 patients (EVL+β-blocker group) were treated with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and nonselective β-blocker; 54 patients (HVPG-guided group) were treated with EVL and nonselective β-blocker if HVPG ≤ 16 mmHg (low-HVPG), with percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization (PTVE) if HVPG > 16 mmHg and ≤ 20 mmHg (medium-HVPG), or with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) if HVPG > 20 mmHg (high-HVPG). Patients were followed up for rebleeding and mortality. RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 17.0 months; rebleeding was higher in the EVL+β-blocker group than HVPG-guided group (25.5%, 9.3%, P = 0.026); 3-year probability of rebleeding in the EVL+Beta-blocker group increased with elevated levels of HVPG (12.5% vs 46.4% vs 64.9%, χ(2) = 11.551, P = 0.003), and 3-year probability of survival was no difference (96.6% vs 85.7% vs 90.9%, χ(2) = 2.638, P = 0.267). Rebleeding rate in PTVE group (7.7%) was lower than that in EVL+β-blockergroup with medium-HVPG (35.7%), but there was no difference. Rebleeding rate in TIPS group (7.7%) was lower than that in EVL+β-blockergroup with high-HVPG (45.5%), but there was no difference. CONCLUSIONS: HVPG measurement was useful for making decisions to select EVL and Beta-blocker, PTVE or TIPS in secondary prophylaxis. HVPG-guided treatment is feasible and effective in preventing esophageal varices rebleeding.
BACKGROUND: The best therapy to prevent esophageal variceal (EV) rebleeding in cirrhotic patients who are non-responsive to pharmacological therapy have not been determined. AIMS: To evaluate efficacy of a strategy to assign different treatments according to hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG) values to prevent EV rebleeding in non-responders. METHODS: This study is a non-randomized controlled prospective study. 109 cirrhotic patients with EV bleeding who were non-responders based on two HVPG measurements were enrolled and divided two groups: 55 patients (EVL+β-blocker group) were treated with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and nonselective β-blocker; 54 patients (HVPG-guided group) were treated with EVL and nonselective β-blocker if HVPG ≤ 16 mmHg (low-HVPG), with percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization (PTVE) if HVPG > 16 mmHg and ≤ 20 mmHg (medium-HVPG), or with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) if HVPG > 20 mmHg (high-HVPG). Patients were followed up for rebleeding and mortality. RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 17.0 months; rebleeding was higher in the EVL+β-blocker group than HVPG-guided group (25.5%, 9.3%, P = 0.026); 3-year probability of rebleeding in the EVL+Beta-blocker group increased with elevated levels of HVPG (12.5% vs 46.4% vs 64.9%, χ(2) = 11.551, P = 0.003), and 3-year probability of survival was no difference (96.6% vs 85.7% vs 90.9%, χ(2) = 2.638, P = 0.267). Rebleeding rate in PTVE group (7.7%) was lower than that in EVL+β-blockergroup with medium-HVPG (35.7%), but there was no difference. Rebleeding rate in TIPS group (7.7%) was lower than that in EVL+β-blockergroup with high-HVPG (45.5%), but there was no difference. CONCLUSIONS: HVPG measurement was useful for making decisions to select EVL and Beta-blocker, PTVE or TIPS in secondary prophylaxis. HVPG-guided treatment is feasible and effective in preventing esophageal varices rebleeding.
Authors: Salvador Augustin; Antonio González; Laia Badia; Laura Millán; Aranzazu Gelabert; Alejandro Romero; Antoni Segarra; María Martell; Rafael Esteban; Jaime Guardia; Joan Genescà Journal: Hepatology Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Shivaram P Singh; Manav Wadhawan; Subrat K Acharya; Sawan Bopanna; Kaushal Madan; Manoj K Sahoo; Naresh Bhat; Sri P Misra; Ajay Duseja; Amar Mukund; Anil C Anand; Ashish Goel; Bonthala S Satyaprakash; Joy Varghese; Manas K Panigrahi; Manu Tandan; Mihir K Mohapatra; Pankaj Puri; Pravin M Rathi; Rajkumar P Wadhwa; Sunil Taneja; Varghese Thomas; Vikram Bhatia Journal: Indian J Gastroenterol Date: 2021-12-10
Authors: Michael Bernhard Pitton; Arndt Weinmann; Roman Kloeckner; Jens Mittler; Christian Ruckes; Christoph Düber; Gerd Otto Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Yin Jikai; Wang Dong; Zhang Li; Dong Rui; Yang Tao; Huang Bo; Sun Yibo; Lei Shixiong; Bai Qiangshan; Lu Jianguo Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-08-10
Authors: Rosa G Simonetti; Giovanni Perricone; Helen L Robbins; Narendra R Battula; Martin O Weickert; Robert Sutton; Saboor Khan Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-10-22