Pre-emptive TIPS in high-risk acute variceal bleeding. An updated and revised individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A previous individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) showed that compared with drugs+endoscopy, the placement of transjugular portosystemic shunt within 72 hours of admission (pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: p-TIPS) increases the survival of high-risk patients (Child-Pugh B+ active bleeding and Child-Pugh C<14 points) with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding. However, the previous IPD-MA was not a two-stage meta-analysis, did not consider the potential risk of selection bias of observational studies, and did not include the most recent randomized clinical trial. We performed an updated and revised IPD-MA to reassess the efficacy of p-TIPS, addressing all previous issues. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We included all studies from the previous IPD-MA and searched for other possible eligible publications until September 2022. We performed a two-stage IPD-MA of data from 8 studies (4 randomized clinical trials and 4 observational). In addition, we performed a sensitivity analysis excluding those patients dying up to the first 72 hours after admission in the Drugs+Endoscopy arms of the 4 observational studies. The primary end point was the effects of p-TIPS versus Drugs+Endoscopy on 1-year survival.We identified 1389 patients (342 p-TIPS and 1047 Drugs+Endoscopy). The two-stage IPD-MA showed that p-TIPS significantly reduced the mortality in the overall population (HR=0·43, 95% CI: 0.32-0.60, p <0.001. This effect was observed in both subgroups of patients with Child-Pugh. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the survival benefit of p-TIPS. CONCLUSIONS: The updated two-stage IPD-MA confirms the significant survival advantage of p-TIPS in high-risk patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding. As a result, we recommend p-TIPS as the preferred first-choice treatment for these patients.

Carvedilol versus endoscopic band ligation for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding-long-term follow-up of a randomised control trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Carvedilol reduces rates of variceal bleeding and rebleeding by lowering portal pressure. However, an associated pleiotropic survival benefit has been proposed. We aimed to assess long-term survival in a cohort of patients previously randomised to receive either carvedilol or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) following oesophageal variceal bleeding (OVB). METHODS: The index study randomised 64 cirrhotic patients with OVB between 2006 and 2011 to receive either carvedilol or EBL. Follow-up was undertaken to April 2020 by review of electronic patient records. The primary outcome was survival. Other outcomes including variceal rebleeding and liver decompensation events were compared. RESULTS: 26 out of 33 participants received carvedilol in the follow-up period and 28 out of 31 attended regular EBL sessions. The median number of follow-up days for all patients recruited was 1459 (SE = 281.74). On the intention to treat analysis, there was a trend towards improved survival in the carvedilol group (p = 0.09). On per-protocol analysis, carvedilol use was associated with improved long-term survival (p = 0.005, HR 3.083, 95% CI 1.397-6.809), fewer liver-related deaths (0% vs 22.57%, p = 0.013, OR ∞, 95%CI 1.565-∞) and fewer admissions with decompensated liver disease (12% vs 64.29%, p = 0.0002, OR 13.2, 95% CI 3.026-47.23) compared to the EBL group. There was no statistically significant difference in variceal rebleeding rates. CONCLUSION: Following OVB in cirrhotic patients, carvedilol use is associated with survival benefit, fewer liver-related deaths and fewer hospital admissions with decompensated liver disease. Further studies are needed to validate this finding.

Randomised clinical trial: standard of care versus early-transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPSS) in patients with cirrhosis and oesophageal variceal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Early-transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPSS) has been recommended in international guidelines for high-risk patients with oesophageal variceal bleeding. AIM: To validate the results of a previous randomised control trial which supports use of early-TIPSS. METHODS: In a two-centre open-label parallel-group randomised control trial, patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding were recruited following haemostasis with vaso-active drugs and endoscopic band ligation. Participants were randomised to standard of care or early-TIPSS. The primary outcome was 1-year survival, secondary outcomes included early and late rebleeding, and complications of portal hypertension. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients (58 ± 11.12 years; 32.7% female) were randomised. After one year, seven patients died in the standard of care group and six in the early-TIPSS group, a 1-year survival of 75.9% vs 79.3% respectively (P = 0.79). Variceal rebleeding occurred in eight patients in the standard of care group compared with three patients in the early-TIPSS group (P = 0.09). Not all participants randomised to early-TIPSS received the intervention in time. For those receiving TIPSS per-protocol, variceal rebleeding rates were reduced (0% vs 27.6%, P = 0.04) but this had no effect on survival (76.9% vs 75.9%, P = 0.91). Serious adverse events were similar in both treatment groups, except that rates of hepatic encephalopathy were higher in patients receiving TIPSS (46.1% vs 20.7%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Early-TIPSS reduced variceal rebleeding, increased encephalopathy but had no effect on survival in high-risk patients with oesophageal variceal bleeding. Early-TIPSS may not be feasible in many centres however, larger studies are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT02377141.

A phase 2 randomised controlled trial of serelaxin to lower portal pressure in cirrhosis (STOPP).

BACKGROUND: In preclinical models, recombinant human relaxin-2 (serelaxin) had anti-fibrotic effects and ameliorated portal hypertension (PH). A small exploratory study in patients with cirrhosis also suggested that serelaxin could reduce portal pressure. METHODS: In a phase 2, double-blind, randomised controlled study conducted in a single centre (Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, UK), male and female adult participants with cirrhosis and clinically significant PH (CSPH; hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) > 10 mmHg) were enrolled. Participants were allocated to serelaxin or placebo in a 3:1 ratio. The placebo was matched to serelaxin on appearance and administration protocol to create and maintain blinding. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in fasting HVPG after 2 h of peripheral i.v. serelaxin infusion (80 µg/kg/day for 60 min followed by 30 µg/kg/day for at least 60 min). Secondary endpoints included the change from baseline in hepatic blood flow and systemic haemodynamics (cardiac index, systemic vascular resistance index and aortic pulse wave velocity). Short-term safety and tolerability of serelaxin were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 17 participants were screened, 15 were randomised and 11 completed the study (n = 9 serelaxin, n = 2 placebo). Reasons for withdrawal were baseline HVPG < 10 mmHg (n = 2) and technical failure (n = 2). The trial ended early due to manufacturer discontinuation of the study drug. The median age was 56 (range 43-69) years and 73% of participants were male. Alcohol was the commonest cirrhosis aetiology (n = 10). Participants had a median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 10 (range 6-14). The mean baseline HVPG was 16.3 (range 10.3-21.7) mmHg. Individual responses were variable, but overall there was no statistically significant change in HVPG after 2 h of i.v. serelaxin (arithmetic mean of difference ± SD was 0.4 ± 3.5 mmHg (95% CI -2.3, 3.1; p = 0.76)). There were also no substantial changes from baseline in hepatic or systemic haemodynamics. We recorded 12 adverse events in 7 participants treated with serelaxin; none were significant, and most were unrelated to the investigational medicinal product. There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: In a small randomised, phase 2, proof-of-concept study in patients with cirrhosis and CSPH, serelaxin infusion was safe and well-tolerated but had a neutral effect on HVPG. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02669875. Registered on 1 February 2016.

Previous Use of Antithrombotic Agents Reduces Mortality and Length of Hospital Stay in Patients With High-risk Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Anti-thrombotic agents are risk factors for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). However, few studies have evaluated their effects on patient outcomes. We assessed the effects of anti-thrombotic agents on outcomes of patients with high-risk UGIB. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 619 patients with acute UGIB (defined by hematemesis, coffee-ground vomit or melena) who required intervention and underwent endoscopy at 8 centers in North America, Asia, and Europe, from March 2014 through March 2015. We collected data recorded on use of anti-thrombotic agents, clinical features, and laboratory test results to calculate AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford Score, and full Rockall scores. We also collected and analyzed data on co-morbidities, endoscopic findings, blood transfusion, interventional radiology results, surgeries, length of hospital stay, rebleeding, and mortality. RESULTS: Of the 619 patients who required endoscopic therapy, data on use of anti-thrombotic agents was available for 568; 253 of these patients (44%) used anti-thrombotic agents. Compared to patients not taking anti-thrombotic agents, patients treated with anti-thrombotics were older (P < .001), had a higher mean American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score (P < .0001), had a higher mean Rockall score (P < .0001), a higher mean AIMS65 score (P < .0001), and more frequently bled from ulcers (P < .001). There were no differences between groups in sex, systolic blood pressure, level of hemoglobin at hospital admission, frequency of malignancies, Glasgow-Blatchford Score, need for surgery or interventional radiology, number of rebleeding events, or requirement for transfusion. All-cause mortality was lower in patients who took anti-thrombotic drugs (11 deaths, 4%) than in patients who did not (37 deaths, 12%) (P = .002); this was due to lower bleeding-related mortality in patients taking anti-thrombotic drugs (3 deaths, 1%) than in patients who were not (19 deaths, 6%) (P = .003). Patients taking anti-thrombotic drugs had mean hospital stays of 6.9 days (95% CI, 2-23 days) compared to 7.9 days for non-users of anti-thrombotic agents (95% CI, 2-26 days) (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being older, with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, AIMS65, and Rockall scores, patients who have UGIB that requires endoscopic therapy and take anti-thrombotic drugs have lower mortality due to GI bleeding and shorter hospital stays, with similar rates of rebleeding, surgery, and transfusions, compared with those not taking anti-thrombotic drugs.