Prevention Of Recurrent Variceal Bleeding Research Articles

Azygoportal disconnection or a combination of non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation to prevent recurrent bleeding in patients with cirrhosis awaiting transplantation

Objective: to compare the efficacy of azygoportal disconnection (APD) surgery and a combination between endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) in the prevention of recurrent variceal bleeding (RVB). To compare the incidence of gastric variceal bleeding (GVB) after these manipulations in patients with decompensated cirrhosis waitlisted for liver transplantation (LTx).Materials and methods. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis underwent RVB prophylaxis by APD surgery or by a combination of EVL and NSBBs.Results. There were no significant differences in clinical, laboratory, demographic parameters, MELD-Na and Child–Turcotte–Pugh (CTP) scores, and frequencies of medium- and large-sized varicose veins among subgroups of patients with different RVB prophylaxis methods Patients with decompensated cirrhosis who underwent APD surgery did not experience any RVB episodes during the LTx waiting period, which lasted two years from the start of bleeding prophylaxis. In the same period, RVB occurred in 100% of cases in the EVL plus NSBBs group. Using the Kaplan–Meier method with the Log-Rank test, a significant difference (p = 0.0001) was found between the proportions of non-RVB patients in the APD and EVL + NSBBs groups. In the meantime, 48.1% of patients who had APD surgery developed GVB, while 100% of cases in EVL + NSBBs group did not. The Kaplan–Meier method with the Log-Rank test revealed a significant difference (p = 0.0001) between the proportion of non-GVB patients in EVL + NSBBs and APD groups.

Theme: Hepatobiliary system

Theme: Hepatobiliary system

TIPS vs. endoscopic treatment for prevention of recurrent variceal bleeding: a long-term follow-up of 126 patients.

BackgroundRecurrent bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is the most common life-threatening complication of portal hypertension. According to guidelines, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) should not be used as a first-line treatment and should be limited to those bleedings which are refractory to pharmacologic and endoscopic treatment (ET). To our knowledge, long-term studies evaluating the role of elective TIPS in comparison to ET in patients with recurrent variceal bleeding episodes are rare.Patients and methodsThis study was designed as a retrospective single-institution analysis of 70 patients treated with TIPS and 56 with ET. Patients were followed-up from inclusion in the study until death, liver transplantation, the last follow-up observation or until the end of our study.ResultsRecurrent variceal bleeding was significantly more frequent in ET group compared to patients TIPS group (66.1% vs. 21.4%, p < 0.001; χ2-test). The incidence of death secondary to recurrent bleeding was higher in the ET group (28.6% vs. 10%). Cumulative survival after 1 year, 2 years and 5 years in TIPS group compared to ET group was 85% vs. 83%, 73% vs. 67% and 41% vs. 35%, respectively. The main cause of death in patients with cumulative survival more than 2 years was liver failure. Median observation time was 47 months (range; 2–194 months) in the TIPS group and 40 months (range; 1–168 months) in the ET group.ConclusionsIn present study TIPS was more effective in the prevention of recurrent variceal bleeding and had lower mortality due to recurrent variceal bleeding compared to ET.

Where does TIPS fit in the management of patients with cirrhosis?

SummaryIn this review, we summarise the current knowledge on the indications and contraindications of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement for the treatment of the complications of portal hypertension in cirrhosis, specifically variceal haemorrhage and ascites. Moreover, we discuss the role of TIPS for the treatment of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and the prevention of complications after extrahepatic surgery (‘preoperative TIPS’) in patients with cirrhosis. The position of TIPS in the treatment hierarchy depends on the clinical setting and on patient characteristics. In acute variceal haemorrhage, preemptive TIPS is indicated in patients at a high risk of failing standard therapy, that is those with a Child-Pugh score of 10–13 points or Child-Pugh B with active bleeding at endoscopy, although the survival benefit in the latter group still remains to be established. Non-preemptive TIPS is a second-line therapy for the prevention of recurrent variceal haemorrhage and for the treatment of ascites. Of note, TIPS may also improve sarcopenia. Contraindications to TIPS placement, independent of clinical setting, include very advanced disease (Child-Pugh >13 points), episodes of recurrent overt hepatic encephalopathy without an identifiable precipitating factor, heart failure, and pulmonary hypertension. In patients with PVT, TIPS placement not only controls complications of portal hypertension, but also promotes portal vein recanalisation. Although the severity of portal hypertension correlates with poor outcomes after extrahepatic surgery, there is no evidence to recommend preoperative TIPS placement.

Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (TIPS): Pathophysiologic Basics, Actual Indications and Results with Reviewof the Literature.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is a non-selective portosystemic shunt created using endovascular techniques. During recent years technical improvements and new insights into pathophysiology have modified indications for TIPS placement. In this article we therefore want to discuss current knowledge. A literature review was performed to review and discuss the pathophysiology, indications and results of the TIPS procedure. Established TIPS indications are persistent bleeding despite combined pharmacological and endoscopic therapy and rebleeding during the first five days. A new indication in the European recommendations is early TIPS placement within 72 hours, ideally within 24 hours, in patients bleeding from esophageal or gastroesophageal varices at high risk for treatment failure (e. g. Child-Pugh class C < 14 points or Child-Pugh class B with active bleeding) after initial pharmacological and endoscopic therapy. For prevention of recurrent variceal hemorrhage in the recommendations, covered TIPS placement is the treatment of choice only after failed first-line therapy, although numerous TIPS studies show a prolonged time to rebleeding and a reduction of mortality. Similarly for secondary prophylaxis in patients with refractory ascites, covered TIPS placement may be considered only if the patient continues to be intolerant to NSBBs and is an appropriate TIPS candidate even though studies show that the TIPS procedure controls ascites, improves survival and renal function better than paracentesis. Potential indications for TIPS implantation are Budd-Chiari syndrome, acute portal vein thromboses, hydrothorax, hepatopulmonary and hepatorenal syndrome (Typ 2), portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG) and prophylaxis of complications of abdominal surgery, very rarely bleeding in ectopic varices or in patients with chylothorax or chylous ascites. TIPS placement is an established procedure with a new indication as "early TIPS". In the European recommendations it is only the second-line therapy for prevention of recurrent variceal hemorrhage and for secondary prophylaxis in patients with refractory ascites although several studies showed a clear benefit of the TIPS procedure compared to ligation and NSBBs. · In addition to already established indications, new European recommendations suggest early TIPS placement in patients bleeding from esophageal or gastroesophageal varices at high risk for treatment failure.. · Strunk H, Marinova M, . Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (TIPS): Pathophysiologic Basics, Actual Indications and Results with Review of the Literature. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2018; 190: 701 - 711.

Screening and Surveillance of Varices in Patients With Cirrhosis

Gastro-esophageal varices (GEV) and variceal hemorrhage (VH) are clinical milestones in the natural history of cirrhosis, as they are closely related to the severity of portal hypertension and define specific stages in disease progression. Variceal hemorrhage is a life-threatening complication of cirrhosis and is one of the clinical complications that defines cirrhosis decompensation. The goal of screening and surveillance of varices is to identify patients with GEV at a high risk of bleeding, so that prevention strategies can be implemented. There have been significant updates in the management of GEV over the last years, particularly in the use of non-invasive methods to assess the degree of portal hypertension and the likelihood of having GEV. This paper is focused on esophageal varices with or without extension along the lesser curvature (type 1 or GOV1), as special considerations are required for the management of cardiofundal varices (GOV2 - esophageal varices extending into the fundus, or IGV1 - isolated gastric varices in the fundus) or isolated gastric varices type 2 (IGV2 – gastric varices elsewhere in the stomach, not in the fundus).

Stratifying risk in the prevention of recurrent variceal hemorrhage: Results of an individual patient meta-analysis.

Outcomes of therapies to prevent variceal rebleeding differ depending on cirrhosis severity: in patients with preserved liver function (Child A), combination therapy is recommended because it is more effective in preventing rebleeding, without modifying survival, while in patients with advanced liver failure (Child B/C), EVL alone carries an increased risk of rebleeding and death compared with combination therapy, underlining that BB is the key element of combination therapy. (Hepatology 2017;66:1219-1231).

EFFICACY OF CARVEDILOL COMBINED WITH ENDOSCOPIC VARICEAL LIGATION IN THE PREVENTION OF RECURRENT VARICEAL BLEEDING IN PATIENTS OF CIRRHOSIS

Background: The recurrent variceal bleeding is still very high with a very poor prognosis. The combination of a non-selective beta-blocker and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is still a standard therapy for the prevention, but many patients showed no response to propranolol. Carvedilol is a new, non-selective beta-blocker having intrinsic alpha-blocker activity, but the data about the efficacy and safety of carvedilol is still very limited. This study is aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of carvedilol combined with EVL in the prevention of recurrent variceal bleeding. Patients and methods: 33 patients having variceal bleeding were enrolled. All patients received carvedilol and were performed the EVL until variceal eradication. All the patients were followed after 9 months. Results: rate of variceal eradication of oesophageal varices was 87.88%; the recurrence rate of variceal bleeding was 12.12% after 9 months. The side effects of carvedilol were rare and not severe, including vertiges, headache, and orthostatic hypertension. Conclusion: Carvedilol combined with EVL appeared as a relatively safe and effective in the prevention of recurrent variceal bleeding in patients of cirrhosis. Key words: carvedilol, variceal bleeding, EVL

Profiling lifetime episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding among patients from rural Sub-Saharan Africa where schistosoma mansoni is endemic.

IntroductionSevere chronic hepatic schistosomiasis is a common cause of episodes upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, there is paucity of data on clinical epidemiology of episodes of UGIB from rural Africa despite on going public health interventions to control and eliminate schistosomiasis.MethodsThrough a cross sectional study we profiled lifetime episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and associated factors at a rural primary health facility in sub-Saharan Africa were schistosomiasis is endemic. The main outcome was number of lifetime episodes of UGIB analyzed as count data.ResultsFrom 107 enrolled participants, 323 lifetime episodes of UGIB were reported. Fifty-seven percent experienced ≥ 2 lifetime episodes of UGIB. Ninety-four percent had severe chronic hepatic schistosomiasis and 80% esophageal varices. Alcohol use and viral hepatitis was infrequent. Eighty-eight percent were previously treated with praziquantel and 70% had a history of blood transfusion. No patient had ever had an endoscopy or treatment for prevention of recurrent variceal bleeding. Multivariable analysis identified a cluster of eight clinical factor variables (age ≥ 40, female sex, history of blood transfusion, abdominal collaterals, esophageal varices, pattern x periportal fibrosis, anemia, and thrombocytopenia) significantly associated (P-value < 0.05) with increased probability of experiencing two or more lifetime episodes of UGIB in our study.ConclusionUpper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common health problem in this part of rural SSA where schistosomiasis is endemic. The clinical profile described is unique and is important for improved case management, and for future research.

The Surgical Treatment for Portal Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aim. To compare the effectiveness of surgical procedures (selective or nonselective shunt, devascularization, and combined shunt and devascularization) in preventing recurrent variceal bleeding and other complications in patients with portal hypertension. Methods. A systematic literature search of the Medline and Cochrane Library databases was carried out, and a meta-analysis was conducted according to the guidelines of the Quality of Reporting Meta-Analyses (QUOROM) statement. Results. There were a significantly higher reduction in rebleeding, yet a significantly more common encephalopathy (P = 0.05) in patients who underwent the shunt procedure compared with patients who had only a devascularization procedure. Further, there were no significant differences in rebleeding, late mortality, and encephalopathy between selective versus non-selective shunt. Next, the decrease of portal vein pressure, portal vein diameter, and free portal pressure in patients who underwent combined treatment with shunt and devascularization was more pronounced compared with patients who were treated with devascularization alone (P < 0.05). Conclusions. This meta-analysis shows clinical advantages of combined shunt and devascularization over devascularization in the prevention of recurrent variceal bleeding and other complications in patients with portal hypertension.

Management of portal hypertension in children

Portal hypertension can be caused by a wide variety of conditions. It frequently presents with bleeding from esophageal varices. The approach to acute variceal hemorrhage in children is a stepwise progression from least invasive to most invasive. Management of acute variceal bleeding is straightforward. But data on primary prophylaxis and long term management prevention of recurrent variceal bleeding in children is scarce, therefore prospective multicenter trials are needed to establish best practices.

Treatment Modalities for Bleeding Esophagogastric Varices

Bleeding from esophageal varices (EVs) or gastric varices (GVs) is a catastrophic complication of chronic liver disease. In this paper, we review the management of bleeding EVs and GVs. DIAGNOSIS OF EVS AND GVS: The grading system for esophagogastric varices proposed by the Japan Society for Portal Hypertension classifies GVs into those involving the cardia (Lg-c), the fundus (Lg-f), and both the cardia and the fundus (Lg-cf). In this review, we divide GVs into 2 categories: Lg-c (cardiac varices: CVs) and Lg-cf or Lg-f (fundal varices: FVs). TREATMENT MODALITIES FOR EVS AND GVS: Treatment modalities for EVs and GVs include placement of a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube, pharmacologic therapy, surgery, interventional radiology, and endoscopic treatment. MANAGEMENT OF BLEEDING EVS AND GVS: In Japan, endoscopic treatment has recently become the therapy of choice for bleeding EVs or GVs. In other countries, especially the United States, vasoactive drugs and endoscopic treatment are routinely used to manage variceal hemorrhage. BLEEDING EVS: Endoscopic variceal ligation is useful for controlling bleeding from EVs. However, confirmation of ligation precisely at the site of bleeding is usually difficult in patients with massive variceal bleeding. The site of acute bleeding can generally be identified by means of water instillation and suction. Ligation is then performed at the bleeding point. If endoscopic hemostasis is unsuccessful, a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube is used as a temporary bridge to other treatments. Transportal obliteration is useful for blocking variceal blood flow. BLEEDING GVS: Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy with a tissue adhesive, such as N-butyl-cyanoacrylate or isobutyl-2-cyanoacrylate, is effective for acute bleeding from GVs. However, bleeding from the GV injection site and rebleeding from the rupture point have been reported in patients receiving endoscopic injection sclerotherapy. If endoscopic hemostasis is unsuccessful, a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube is used as a temporary bridge to other treatments. Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration and transportal obliteration are useful for the treatment of uncontrolled bleeding from GVs. PREVENTION OF RECURRENT VARICEAL HEMORRHAGE: Given the high recurrence rate, survivors of an acute variceal hemorrhage should receive treatment to prevent recurrence. Complete eradication of EVs or GVs and maintenance of low portal venous pressure are essential for preventing recurrence of variceal hemorrhage.

Treatment of portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is the main complication of cirrhosis and is defined as an hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) of more than 5 mmHg. Clinically significant portal hypertension is defined as HVPG of 10 mmHg or more. Development of gastroesophageal varices and variceal hemorrhage are the most direct consequence of portal hypertension. Over the last decades significant advancements in the field have led to standard treatment options. These clinical recommendations have evolved mostly as a result of randomized controlled trials and consensus conferences among experts where existing evidence has been reviewed and future goals for research and practice guidelines have been proposed. Management of varices/variceal hemorrhage is based on the clinical stage of portal hypertension. No specific treatment has shown to prevent the formation of varices. Prevention of first variceal hemorrhage depends on the size/characteristics of varices. In patients with small varices and high risk of bleeding, non-selective β-blockers are recommended, while patients with medium/large varices can be treated with either β-blockers or esophageal band ligation. Standard of care for acute variceal hemorrhage consists of vasoactive drugs, endoscopic band ligation and antibiotics prophylaxis. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is reserved for those who fail standard of care or for patients who are likely to fail ("early TIPS"). Prevention of recurrent variceal hemorrhage consists of the combination of β-blockers and endoscopic band ligation.

Cavernous vessels around a patent portal trunk in the liver hilum

Cavernous transformation of the portal vein (CTPV) is considered a sequel to extrahepatic portal vein obstruction. However, we have observed an unusual finding of cavernous vessels around a patent portal trunk in the liver hilum. The aim of our study is to describe the imaging features, clinical profiles, management, and outcome of these patients. We re-evaluated the images of all consecutive non-malignant and non-cirrhotic patients with a diagnosis of CTPV admitted to our department between July 2002 and June 2010. The patients with a patent portal trunk were enrolled in this study. A total of five patients had cavernous vessels around a patent portal trunk. Of them, all presented with abdominal distension, and one with recurrent variceal bleeding. Hepatomegaly and splenomegaly were found in one and four patients, respectively. All but one with previous splenectomy had a decreased platelet count. Three patients had a high level of alkaline phosphatase and/or γ-glutamyl transferase. Serum bilirubin, albumin, and creatinine were in normal range. Endoscopy demonstrated varices in three patients. Mild ascites was detected in one patient by ultrasound. Conservative therapy was given to two patients with mild abdominal discomfort. Splenectomy or partial spleen embolization was given to two patients with hypersplenism. A transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt insertion was performed in one patient for the prevention of recurrent variceal bleeding. All patients were alive during follow-up. These unusual findings led us to believe that cavernous vessels could develop around a patent portal trunk. Further studies are necessary to explore its pathogenesis.

T1006 Poor Adherence to Guidelines for Prevention of Recurrent Variceal Bleeding Among Veterans

Background: Variceal hemorrhage is the most lethal complication of cirrhosis, with 20% mortality rate within the first 6 weeks. When untreated, the risk of rebleeding is as high as 60% within 2 years. Guidelines have been proposed by the AASLD to prevent recurrence of variceal hemorrhage. We hypothesize that adherence to these guidelines is suboptimal at this Veterans Affairs Hospital. Aims: (1) To determine the proportion of patients who adhered to current AASLD guidelines for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, (2) to identify barriers to adherence and (3) to compare outcomes between patients who were compliant and those non-compliant with the guidelines. Methods: All cirrhotic patients presenting to the NF/SGVHS with an index episode of esophageal variceal bleeding between 1/1/2000 and 12/31/ 2008 were identified. Individual charts were reviewed. Primary endpoints were rebleeding or death. Statistical analyzes were performed as appropriate. Results: 67 male patients were included, mean age 59 years old (range 35-81), and followed for a mean of 18.7 months (range 0-85). Beta-blockers were initiated prior to discharge in 55 patients (82%). After index EVL, GI recommended repeat EGD in 46/67 (69%), EGD was ordered prior to discharge in 37/67 (55%), and performed within the guideline recommended 7-14 days in only 4/67 (6%). 18/67 (27%) had EVL within 30 days. Reasons for nonadherence were: MD did not order EGD in 16/32 (50%), patient cancelled in 13/32 (41%) and clinic cancelled in 3/32 (9%). Regardless of the interval between EGDs, 26 patients achieved eradication of varices, and only 9 (13.4%) had follow-up EGD for confirmation of eradication. In all, 26 patients (38.8%) suffered a rebleeding episode, and 51 (76%) were deceased by the end of the study period. Rebleeding rate was 25% of those re-scoped within 2 weeks, 35.7% of those re-scoped within 15-30 days, and 40% of the remaining patients (p=NS). There was also no difference in rebleeding rate according to eradication status. However, mortality was higher among patients who did not achieve eradication (55% vs. 21%, p= 0.0011). Conclusion: Only a negligible proportion of patients undergo appropriate secondary prophylaxis for esophageal variceal bleeding and this poor adherence is associated with increased mortality. Further efforts should be directed toward strategies to provide guideline concordant care should be targeted towards educating providers and identifying patient centered barriers to adherence. One strategy we are exploring is the creation of an order set for EGD scheduling prior to discharge.

Nitroflurbiprofen, a Nitric Oxide-Releasing Cyclooxygenase Inhibitor, Improves Cirrhotic Portal Hypertension in Rats

We studied whether administration of nitroflurbiprofen (HCT-1026), a cyclooxygenase inhibitor with nitric oxide (NO)-donating properties, modulates the increased intrahepatic vascular tone in portal hypertensive cirrhotic rats. In vivo hemodynamic measurements (n = 8/condition) and evaluation of the increased intrahepatic resistance by in situ perfusion (n = 5/condition) were performed in rats with thioacetamide-induced cirrhosis that received either nitroflurbiprofen (45 mg/kg), flurbiprofen (30 mg/kg, equimolar concentration to nitroflurbiprofen), or vehicle by intraperitoneal injection 24 hours and 1 hour prior to the measurements. Additionally, we evaluated the effect of acute administration of both drugs (250 micromol/L) on the intrahepatic vascular tone in the in situ perfused cirrhotic rat liver (endothelial dysfunction and hyperresponsiveness to methoxamine) and on hepatic stellate cell contraction in vitro. Typical systemic adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, such as gastrointestinal ulceration, renal insufficiency, and hepatotoxicity, were actively explored. In vivo, nitroflurbiprofen and flurbiprofen equally decreased portal pressure (8 +/- 0.8 and 8.4 +/- 0.1 mm Hg, respectively, vs 11.8 +/- 0.6 mm Hg) and reduced the total intrahepatic vascular resistance. Systemic hypotension was not aggravated in the different treatment groups (P = .291). In the perfused cirrhotic liver, both drugs improved endothelial dysfunction and hyperresponsiveness. This was associated with a decreased hepatic thromboxane A(2)-production and an increased intrahepatic nitrate/nitrite level. In vitro, nitroflurbiprofen, more than flurbiprofen, decreased hepatic stellate cells contraction. Flurbiprofen-treated rats showed severe gastrointestinal ulcerations (bleeding in 3/8 rats) and nefrotoxicity, which was not observed in nitroflurbiprofen-treated cirrhotic rats. Treatment with nitroflurbiprofen, an NO-releasing cyclooxygenase inhibitor, improves portal hypertension without major adverse effects in thioacetamide-induced cirrhotic rats by attenuating intrahepatic vascular resistance, endothelial dysfunction, and hepatic hyperreactivity to vasoconstrictors.

Natural history of a randomized trial comparing distal spleno-renal shunt with endoscopic sclerotherapy in the prevention of variceal rebleeding: A lesson from the past

To compare endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) with distal splenorenal shunt (DSRS) in the prevention of recurrent variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients during a long-term follow-up period. In 1984 we started a prospective, controlled study of patients with liver cirrhosis. Long-term follow-up presents a natural history of liver cirrhosis complicated by advanced portal hypertension. In this study the effects of 2 types of treatment, DSRS or ES, were evaluated. The study population included 80 patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension referred to our department from October 1984 to March 1991. These patients were drawn from a pool of 282 patients who underwent either elective surgery or ES during the same period of time. Patients were assigned to one of the 2 groups according to a random number table: 40 to DSRS and 40 to ES using polidocanol. During the postoperative period, no DSRS patient died, while one ES patient died of uncontrolled hemorrhage. One DSRS patient had mild recurrent variceal hemorrhage despite an angiographically patent DSRS and another patient suffered duodenal ulcer rebleeding. Eight ES patients suffered at least one episode of gastrointestinal bleeding: 4 from varices and 4 from esophageal ulcerations. Eight ES patients developed transitory dysphagia. Long-term follow-up was completed in all patients except for 5 cases (2 DSRS and 3 ES patients). Five-year survival rates for shunt (73%) and ES (56%) groups were statistically different: in this follow-up period and in subsequent follow-ups this difference decreased and ceased to be of statistical relevance. The primary cause of death became hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Four DSRS patients rebled due to duodenal ulcer, while eleven ES patients had recurrent bleeding from esophago-gastric sources (seven from varices, three from hypertensive gastropathy, one from esophageal ulcerations) and two from unknown sources. Nine DSRS and 2 ES patients developed a chronic encephalopathy; 13 DSRS and 5 ES patients suffered at least one episode of acute encephalopathy. Five ES patients had esophageal stenoses, which were successfully dilated. In a subgroup of patients with good liver function, DSRS with a correct portal-azygos disconnection more effectively prevents variceal rebleeding than ES. However, this positive effect did not influence the long-term survival because other factors (e.g. HCC) were more important in deciding the fate of the cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension.

Endoscopic variceal banding vs. pharmacological therapy for the prevention of recurrent variceal hemorrhage: What makes the difference?

GASTROENTEROLOGY 2002;123:1388-1391

Some TIPS for the prevention of recurrent variceal hemorrhage?

GASTROENTEROLOGY 2002;123:384-386

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS): current status and future possibilities.

Since the insertion of the first TIPS in 1989 much has been learned about this therapeutic procedure. It has an established role for the treatment of some complications of portal hypertension: prevention of recurrent variceal bleeding and rescue of patients with acute uncontrollable variceal bleeding. In addition TIPS is useful for Budd-Chiari syndrome, refractory ascites and hepatorenal syndrome, although its specific role in these indications remains to be definitively established. However, the decrease in sinusoidal blood flow induced by TIPS can lead to the patient developing hepatic encephalopathy and liver failure in some cases. Therefore, TIPS should be used with caution in patients with very poor liver function. From a technical point of view, successful placement of TIPS is achieved in more than 98% of cases by experienced groups. At present, evaluation of TIPS dysfunction based on morphology probably leads to an overdiagnosis of this complication since most of these cases are not associated with clinical manifestations (recurrent bleeding or refractory ascites). The major disadvantage of TIPS remains its poor long-term patency requiring a mandatory surveillance program. The indicator for shunt function/malfunction should be the portosystemic pressure gradient, which is best assessed by intravascular measurements. Shunt obstructions may be prevented or reduced by the use of stent-grafts in the future.