Sanjeev Kumar Jha1, Manish Mishra2, Ashish Jha2, Vishwa Mohan Dayal2. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sheikhpura, Patna, 800 014, India. drsanjeevjha2010@gmail.com. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sheikhpura, Patna, 800 014, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuous infusion of terlipressin causes more stable reduction in portal venous pressure than intermittent infusion. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of continuous infusion vs. intermittent boluses of terlipressin to control acute variceal bleeding (AVB) in patients with portal hypertension. METHODS:Eighty-six consecutive patients with portal hypertension and AVB were randomized to receive either continuous intravenous infusion (Group A, n = 43) or intravenous boluses of terlipressin (Group B, n = 43). Group A received 1 mg intravenous bolus of terlipressin followed by a continuous infusion of 4 mg in 24 h. Group B received 2 mg intravenous bolus of terlipressin followed by 1 mg intravenous injection every 6 h. Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy was done within 12 h of admission. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) was done using a multi-band ligator. In both groups, treatment was continued up to 5 days. The primary endpoint was rebleeding or death within 5 days of admission. RESULTS: Patients in group A had lower rate of treatment failure (4.7%) as compared to patients in group B (20.7%) (p = 0.02). Within 6 weeks, four and eight patients died in group A and B, respectively (p = 0.21). Model for end-stage liver disease sodium (MELD-Na) score and continuous infusion of terlipressin showed significant relationship with treatment failure on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous infusion of terlipressin may be more effective than intermittent infusion to prevent treatment failure in patients with variceal bleeding. There is significant relationship between MELD-Na score [Odd ratio = 1.37 (95% CI-1.16 - 1.62), p-value < 0.001] and continuous infusion of terlipressin [Odd ratio = 0.18 (95% CI-0.037 - 0.91), p-value - 0.04] with treatment failure.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Continuous infusion of terlipressin causes more stable reduction in portal venous pressure than intermittent infusion. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of continuous infusion vs. intermittent boluses of terlipressin to control acute variceal bleeding (AVB) in patients with portal hypertension. METHODS: Eighty-six consecutive patients with portal hypertension and AVB were randomized to receive either continuous intravenous infusion (Group A, n = 43) or intravenous boluses of terlipressin (Group B, n = 43). Group A received 1 mg intravenous bolus of terlipressin followed by a continuous infusion of 4 mg in 24 h. Group B received 2 mg intravenous bolus of terlipressin followed by 1 mg intravenous injection every 6 h. Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy was done within 12 h of admission. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) was done using a multi-band ligator. In both groups, treatment was continued up to 5 days. The primary endpoint was rebleeding or death within 5 days of admission. RESULTS:Patients in group A had lower rate of treatment failure (4.7%) as compared to patients in group B (20.7%) (p = 0.02). Within 6 weeks, four and eight patients died in group A and B, respectively (p = 0.21). Model for end-stage liver disease sodium (MELD-Na) score and continuous infusion of terlipressin showed significant relationship with treatment failure on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous infusion of terlipressin may be more effective than intermittent infusion to prevent treatment failure in patients with variceal bleeding. There is significant relationship between MELD-Na score [Odd ratio = 1.37 (95% CI-1.16 - 1.62), p-value < 0.001] and continuous infusion of terlipressin [Odd ratio = 0.18 (95% CI-0.037 - 0.91), p-value - 0.04] with treatment failure.
Authors: Joaquin Poza Cordon; Consuelo Froilan Torres; Aurora Burgos García; Francisco Gea Rodriguez; Jose Manuel Suárez de Parga Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-07-16
Authors: George Kalambokis; Spyridon Tsiouris; Epameinondas V Tsianos; Gerasimos Baltayiannis; Barbara Pakou; Andreas Fotopoulos Journal: Liver Int Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.828
Authors: E Moitinho; A Escorsell; J C Bandi; J M Salmerón; J C García-Pagán; J Rodés; J Bosch Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Alberto Monescillo; Francisco Martínez-Lagares; Luis Ruiz-del-Arbol; Angel Sierra; Clemencia Guevara; Elena Jiménez; José Miguel Marrero; Enrique Buceta; Juan Sánchez; Ana Castellot; Mónica Peñate; Ana Cruz; Elena Peña Journal: Hepatology Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Dhiraj Tripathi; Adrian J Stanley; Peter C Hayes; David Patch; Charles Millson; Homoyon Mehrzad; Andrew Austin; James W Ferguson; Simon P Olliff; Mark Hudson; John M Christie Journal: Gut Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 23.059