Vincenzo La Mura1,2,3,4,5, Marta Garcia-Guix2,6, Annalisa Berzigotti1,2,7, Juan G Abraldes1,2,8, Juan Carlos García-Pagán1,2, Candid Villanueva2,6, Jaime Bosch1,2,7. 1. Hepatic Hemodynamic Laboratory, Liver Unit, Hospital Clinic-IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (Ciberehd), Barcelona, Spain. 3. Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Medicina Generale-Emostasi e Trombosi, Milano, Italy. 4. CRC "A.M. e A. Migliavacca" per lo Studio e la Cura delle Malattie del Fegato, Milano, Italy. 5. Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università Degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy. 6. Gastrointestinal Bleeding Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital de Sant Pau, Autonomous University, Barcelona, Spain. 7. Swiss Liver, Hepatology, University Clinic for Visceral Medicine and Surgery, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 8. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) decrease of 20% or more (or ≤12 mm Hg) indicates a good prognosis during propranolol/nadolol treatment but requires two HVPG measurements. We aimed to simplify the risk stratification after variceal bleeding using clinical data and HVPG. METHODS: A total of 193 patients with cirrhosis (62% with ascites and/or hepatic encephalopathy [HE]) who were within 7 days of bleeding had their HVPG measured before and at 1-3 months of treatment with propranolol/nadolol plus endoscopic band ligation. The endpoints were rebleeding and rebleeding/transplantation-free survival for 4 years. Another cohort (n = 231) served as the validation set. RESULTS: During follow-up, 45 patients had variceal bleeding and 61 died. The HVPG responders (n = 71) had lower rebleeding risk (10% vs. 34%, P = 0.001) and better survival than the 122 nonresponders (61% vs. 39%, P = 0.001). Patients with HE (n = 120) had lower survival than patients without HE (40% vs. 63%, P = 0.005). Among the patients with ascites/HE, those with baseline HVPG ≤ 16 mm Hg (n = 16) had a low rebleeding risk (13%). In contrast, among patients with ascites/HE and baseline HVPG > 16 mm Hg, only the HVPG responders (n = 32) had a good prognosis, with lower rebleeding risk and better survival than the nonresponders (n = 72) (respective proportions: 7% vs. 39%, P = 0.018; 56% vs. 30% P = 0.010). These findings allowed us to develop a strategy for risk stratification in which HVPG response was measured only in patients with ascites and/or HE and baseline HVPG > 16 mm Hg. This method reduced the "gray zone" (i.e., high-risk patients who had not died on follow-up) from 46% to 35% and decreased the HVPG measurements required by 42%. The validation cohort confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: Restricting HVPG measurements to patients with ascites/HE and measuring HVPG response only if the patient's baseline HVPG is over 16 mm Hg improves detection of high-risk patients while markedly reducing the number of HVPG measurements required.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) decrease of 20% or more (or ≤12 mm Hg) indicates a good prognosis during propranolol/nadolol treatment but requires two HVPG measurements. We aimed to simplify the risk stratification after variceal bleeding using clinical data and HVPG. METHODS: A total of 193 patients with cirrhosis (62% with ascites and/or hepatic encephalopathy [HE]) who were within 7 days of bleeding had their HVPG measured before and at 1-3 months of treatment with propranolol/nadolol plus endoscopic band ligation. The endpoints were rebleeding and rebleeding/transplantation-free survival for 4 years. Another cohort (n = 231) served as the validation set. RESULTS: During follow-up, 45 patients had variceal bleeding and 61 died. The HVPG responders (n = 71) had lower rebleeding risk (10% vs. 34%, P = 0.001) and better survival than the 122 nonresponders (61% vs. 39%, P = 0.001). Patients with HE (n = 120) had lower survival than patients without HE (40% vs. 63%, P = 0.005). Among the patients with ascites/HE, those with baseline HVPG ≤ 16 mm Hg (n = 16) had a low rebleeding risk (13%). In contrast, among patients with ascites/HE and baseline HVPG > 16 mm Hg, only the HVPG responders (n = 32) had a good prognosis, with lower rebleeding risk and better survival than the nonresponders (n = 72) (respective proportions: 7% vs. 39%, P = 0.018; 56% vs. 30% P = 0.010). These findings allowed us to develop a strategy for risk stratification in which HVPG response was measured only in patients with ascites and/or HE and baseline HVPG > 16 mm Hg. This method reduced the "gray zone" (i.e., high-risk patients who had not died on follow-up) from 46% to 35% and decreased the HVPG measurements required by 42%. The validation cohort confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: Restricting HVPG measurements to patients with ascites/HE and measuring HVPG response only if the patient's baseline HVPG is over 16 mm Hg improves detection of high-risk patients while markedly reducing the number of HVPG measurements required.