Use Of Non-selective Beta-blockers Research Articles

Prevalence and Risk Factors for Portal Cavernoma in Adult Patients with Portal Vein Thrombosis

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) represents a restriction or occlusion of the portal vein by a blood clot, which can appear in liver cirrhosis, inherited or acquired thrombophilia, malignancies, abdominal infection, abdominal inflammation, and injury to the portal vein; it can evolve to local venous extension, recanalization, or portal cavernoma (PC). This research represents an observational study of patients admitted with a diagnosis of PVT between January 2018 and December 2022. We assessed the rate of and risk factors for PC. In total, 189 patients with PVT were included; the rate of PC was 14.8%. In univariate and multivariate analysis, the main risk factors for the presence of PC were etiology (thrombophilia, myeloproliferative disorders, local inflammatory diseases, and idiopathic causes), prior PVT, and complete versus incomplete or single-branch portal obstruction. In patients with superior mesenteric vein (SMV) thrombosis, distal obstruction was more prone to PC than proximal obstruction. The main predictive factors were etiology, prior PVT, complete PVT obstruction, and no prior non-selective beta-blocker (NSBB) use; in patients with SMV thrombosis, the distal extension was more significantly associated with the risk of PC. We propose a composite score for the prediction of PC which includes etiology, prior diagnosis of PVT, prior NSBB use, complete versus incomplete PVT, and distal versus proximal SMV thrombosis, with good accuracy (AUC 0.822) and an estimated sensitivity of 76.92% and specificity of 82.39% at a cut-off value of 4.

Reply: On the use of nonselective beta blockers in cirrhosis.

Reply: On the use of nonselective beta blockers in cirrhosis.

Letter to the Editor: On the use of nonselective beta-blockers in cirrhosis.

Letter to the Editor: On the use of nonselective beta-blockers in cirrhosis.

Safety of Nonselective Beta-Blockers in Decompensated Liver Cirrhosis and Their Role in Inducing Hepatorenal Syndrome.

Background Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) have been used in the management of portal hypertension and the prevention of initial and recurrent variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, there is controversy regarding the use of NSBBs in patients with decompensated cirrhosis (DC) due to concerns over potential adverse effects, such as worsening of hepatic function and risk of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). HRS is a serious complication of DC characterized by acute kidney injury (AKI) and progressive renal failure, and its development can lead to significant morbidity and mortality in this setting. Therefore, using NSBBs in patients with DC remains an area of ongoing research and debate. Our study aims to investigate the potential effect of NSBBs on HRS development. Methodology A retrospective chart review of 404 patients with cirrhosis was performed across all Northwell Health institutions between January 01, 2019, and December 31, 2020. An analysis was done on 516 patient encounters. Inclusion criteria included patients with an established International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision code of cirrhosis and AKI.After adjusting for clinical predictors, the Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U-testwas used to compare variables between the two outcome groups (HRS vs. no HRS) for the continuous variables. Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used for the categorical variablesto test if an association existed between the use of NSBBs at home and HRS. A two-sided p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Results The primary outcome was the development of HRS during the hospital stay. With a total of 109 visits with HRS, we had 21 (23.60%) reported HRS in the 89 visits where NSBBs were used at home before the hospitalization, while 88 (20.61%) HRS were observed in the 427 visits with no NSBB use at home. The use of NSBBs at home was not significantly associated with the development of HRS (odds ratio = 1.1, 95% confidence interval = 0.6-1.9, p = 0.7321). We also found that higher serum albumin on admission is associated with lower odds of HRS. In contrast, increased serum creatinine, bilirubin, presence of ascites, and use of pressors were associated with a higher risk of HRS. Conclusions Our study highlights the relevant safety of NSBB use in end-stage liver disease. Their use did not appear to increase the risk of developing HRS during hospitalization with DC. Further randomized controlled trials are warranted to shed more light on the efficacy, dose tolerance limits, and safety of NSBBs in decompensated end-stage liver disease.

Predicting major adverse cardiovascular events after orthotopic liver transplantation using a supervised machine learning model: A cohort study.

Liver transplant (LT) patients have become older and sicker. The rate of post-LT major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) has increased, and this in turn raises 30-d post-LT mortality. Noninvasive cardiac stress testing loses accuracy when applied to pre-LT cirrhotic patients. To assess the feasibility and accuracy of a machine learning model used to predict post-LT MACE in a regional cohort. This retrospective cohort study involved 575 LT patients from a Southern Brazilian academic center. We developed a predictive model for post-LT MACE (defined as a composite outcome of stroke, new-onset heart failure, severe arrhythmia, and myocardial infarction) using the extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) machine learning model. We addressed missing data (below 20%) for relevant variables using the k-nearest neighbor imputation method, calculating the mean from the ten nearest neighbors for each case. The modeling dataset included 83 features, encompassing patient and laboratory data, cirrhosis complications, and pre-LT cardiac assessments. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). We also employed Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) to interpret feature impacts. The dataset was split into training (75%) and testing (25%) sets. Calibration was evaluated using the Brier score. We followed Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis guidelines for reporting. Scikit-learn and SHAP in Python 3 were used for all analyses. The supplementary material includes code for model development and a user-friendly online MACE prediction calculator. Of the 537 included patients, 23 (4.46%) developed in-hospital MACE, with a mean age at transplantation of 52.9 years. The majority, 66.1%, were male. The XGBoost model achieved an impressive AUROC of 0.89 during the training stage. This model exhibited accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score values of 0.84, 0.85, 0.80, and 0.79, respectively. Calibration, as assessed by the Brier score, indicated excellent model calibration with a score of 0.07. Furthermore, SHAP values highlighted the significance of certain variables in predicting postoperative MACE, with negative noninvasive cardiac stress testing, use of nonselective beta-blockers, direct bilirubin levels, blood type O, and dynamic alterations on myocardial perfusion scintigraphy being the most influential factors at the cohort-wide level. These results highlight the predictive capability of our XGBoost model in assessing the risk of post-LT MACE, making it a valuable tool for clinical practice. Our study successfully assessed the feasibility and accuracy of the XGBoost machine learning model in predicting post-LT MACE, using both cardiovascular and hepatic variables. The model demonstrated impressive performance, aligning with literature findings, and exhibited excellent calibration. Notably, our cautious approach to prevent overfitting and data leakage suggests the stability of results when applied to prospective data, reinforcing the model's value as a reliable tool for predicting post-LT MACE in clinical practice.

Impact of preoperative nonselective beta-blocker use on acute kidney injury after living donor liver transplantation: Propensity score analysis

Introduction and ObjectivesAcute kidney injury (AKI) is prevalent and has deleterious effects on postoperative outcomes following liver transplantation (LT). The impact of nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) in patients with liver cirrhosis remains controversial. This study investigated the association between preoperative NSBB use and AKI after living donor LT (LDLT). Patients and MethodsWe evaluated 2,972 adult LDLT recipients between January 2012 and July 2022. The patients were divided into two groups based on the preoperative NSBB use. Propensity score matched (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analyses were performed to evaluate the association between preoperative NSBB use and postoperative AKI. Multiple logistic regression analyses were also used to identify the risk factors for AKI. ResultsThe overall incidence of AKI was 1,721 (57.9%) cases. The NSBB group showed a higher incidence of AKI than the non-NSBB group (62.4% vs. 56.7%; P = 0.011). After PSM and IPTW analyses, no significant difference in the incidence of AKI was found between the two groups (Odds ratio, OR 1.13, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.93–1.37, P = 0.230, PSM analysis; OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.99–1.44, P = 0.059, IPTW analysis). In addition, preoperative NSBB use was not associated with AKI after multivariate logistic regression analysis (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.96–1.40, P = 0.118). ConclusionsPreoperative NSBB use was not associated with AKI after LDLT. Further studies are needed to validate our results.

Nonselective beta-blockers may lead to stage 2 acute kidney injury and waitlist mortality in child class C cirrhosis.

Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB) protect patients with compensated cirrhosis; however, it is unclear if NSBB is associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. We aimed to determine if the use of NSBB was associated with an increased risk of stage II AKI or greater and waitlist mortality (WLM) among patients with decompensated cirrhosis awaiting liver transplant stratified by cirrhosis severity. Included were 1816 outpatients listed for liver transplantation at UCSF from June 2012 to April 2022. Our primary outcome was stage 2 AKI (>200% increase in serum creatinine). Our secondary outcome was WLM (all-cause mortality). Our primary exposure was the use of any NSBB derived using natural language processing of clinical notes. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models with time-dependent variables were used to determine the HR of NSBB use on stage 2 AKI and WLM, stratified by Child-Pugh Score. The average age of the cohort was 58 years old, with 35% identifying as female. In multivariable time-dependent models, NSBB use was associated with 1.53 × (95 CI 1.19-1.97) the hazard of stage 2 AKI in the cohort overall and 1.80 × (95 CI 1.26-2.57) among those with Child C cirrhosis, respectively. Similarly, NSBB use was associated with 1.30 × (95 CI 1.07-1.59) and 1.45 × (95 CI 1.03-2.03) the hazard of WLM, overall and in Child C, respectively. NSBB use was not significantly associated with AKI nor WLM among those with Child A. NSBB use is associated with Stage 2 AKI and WLM in patients awaiting liver transplantation and Child C cirrhosis. These data suggest cautious use of NSBBs in patients in this population.

Compensated liver cirrhosis: Natural course and disease-modifying strategies.

Compensated liver cirrhosis (CLC) is defined as cirrhosis with one or more decompensating events, such as ascites, variceal haemorrhage, or hepatic encephalopathy. Patients with CLC are largely asymptomatic with preserved hepatic function. The transition from CLC to decompensated cirrhosis occurs as a result of a complex interaction between multiple predisposing and precipitating factors. The first decompensation event in CLC patients is considered a significant turning point in the progression of cirrhosis, as it signals a drastic decline in median survival rates from 10-12 years to only 1-2 years. Furthermore, early cirrhosis has the potential to regress as liver fibrosis is a dynamic condition. With the advent of effective non-invasive tools for detecting hepatic fibrosis, more and more patients with CLC are currently being recognised. This offers clinicians a unique opportunity to properly manage such patients in order to achieve cirrhosis regression or, at the very least, prevent its progression. There are numerous emerging approaches for preventing or delaying decompensation in CLC patients. A growing body of evidence indicates that treating the underlying cause can lead to cirrhosis regression, and the use of non-selective beta-blockers can prevent decompensation by lowering portal hypertension. Additionally, addressing various cofactors (such as obesity, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, and alcoholism) and precipitating factors (such as infection, viral hepatitis, and hepatotoxic drugs) that have a detrimental impact on the natural course of cirrhosis may benefit patients with CLC. However, high-quality data must be generated through well-designed and adequately powered randomised clinical trials to validate these disease-modifying techniques for CLC patients. This article discussed the natural history of CLC, risk factors for its progression, and therapeutic approaches that could alter the trajectory of CLC evolution and improve outcomes.

Non-Selective Beta-Blockers and Risk of Sepsis in Patients with Cirrhosis and Ascites: Results from a Large Observational Study.

Previous studies have not been able to determine whether non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) reduce the risk of sepsis in cirrhosis. We aimed to examine this question with data from 1198 patients with cirrhosis and ascites included in clinical studies of satavaptan, a vasopressin receptor antagonist with no effect on infection risk. Risk of sepsis was estimated for NSBB users vs nonusers. Patients were examined every four weeks, or in relation to hospitalization, for the one-year duration of the trials. We computed the cumulative risk of sepsis for patients who did vs did not use NSBB at baseline. We used Cox regression to compare hazard rates of sepsis between current users and nonusers, accounting for changes in NSBB use over time. We adjusted for patient sex and age, MELD-Na score, albumin, use of antibiotics, use of proton pump inhibitors, cirrhosis etiology, history of variceal bleeding or SBP, severity of ascites and HE, HCC, other cancers, and diabetes, while stratifying on geographical region. Of the 1198 patients, 54% used NSBB at some time. There were 56 sepsis episodes. The 1-year risk of sepsis was reduced to 5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.8-8.6) in baseline NSBB users vs 11.6% (95% CI 7.0-15.9) in baseline nonusers. The hazard ratio of sepsis for current NSBB users vs current nonusers was reduced to 0.5 (95% CI 0.3-0.8) and after adjustment to 0.7 (95% CI 0.4-1.3). NSBB use may reduce the risk of sepsis in patients with cirrhosis and ascites, but the precision of the estimate was limited by the number of episodes of sepsis.

Nonselective beta-blockers in primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with ascites waitlisted for liver transplantation

Objective: to determine the efficacy of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) in the primary prevention of bleeding esophageal varices and to assess their impact on the survival of patients with ascites enrolled in the liver transplant waiting list (LTWL).Materials and methods. We carried out a retrospective comparative study of cirrhotic patients with severe ascites and esophageal varices without bleeding before enrollment in the LTWL. Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding included the use of NSBBs (n = 97, group 1). These drugs were not used in the other patients (n = 91, group 2).Results. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of clinical, laboratory and demographic parameters, MELD scores and Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) classes for cirrhosis. Patient groups included in the study had no significant differences with respect to incidence of medium- and large-sized varices and incidence of severe ascites. Bleeding incidence was significantly lower in the NSBBs group than in the non-NSBBs group (52.6% and 95.6%, respectively, p = 0.0001).Conclusion. NSBBs constitute an efficacious therapy in primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding, thereby saving life and preventing delisting of patients with ascites from the LTWL.

Endoscopic band ligation is safe despite low platelet count and high INR

BackgroundProphylactic endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is used to prevent variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis. The association of thrombocytopenia, high INR (international normalized ratio) and liver dysfunction with the risk of procedure-related bleeding (PRB) remains debated and recommendations are controversial.MethodsWe analyzed real-life data of cirrhotic patients undergoing elective EBL at two large Viennese centers between Q1/2000–Q1/2018. PRB was defined as bleeding occurring within 30 days after EBL.ResultsWe included 617 patients undergoing a total of 1178 prophylactic EBL procedures (median 2 per patient). Sixteen (2.6%) of 617 patients experienced PRB after a median of 12.5 (IQR 17.3) days with no difference in characteristics and laboratory values between the two groups. The proportion of patients with platelets (PLT) < 50 G/L or INR ≥ 1.5 was similar in patients with vs. without PRB. A higher MELD showed a non-significant association with EBL-related bleeding risk (odds ratio, OR 1.07; 95% confidence interval 95% CI 1.00–1.16, p = 0.058). While serum bilirubin was a significant predictor for PRB (OR: 1.10; 95% CI 1.03–1.18), the presence of large varices (OR 0.85 vs. small varices; 95% CI 0.20–3.84), INR (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.10–3.14), PLT (OR 1.00; 95% CI 1.00–1.01) and the use of non-selective betablockers (OR 1.20; CI 95% 0.38–3.76) were not associated with PRB.ConclusionEBL is safe and procedure-related bleedings are rare (2.6%) including in patients with thrombocytopenia < 50 G/L or high INR ≥ 1.5. Only high MELD, and especially high bilirubin seem to be linked to an increased risk of EBL-related bleeding.

Outcomes of beta blocker use in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

In patients with cirrhosis, portal hypertension increases intestinal permeability, dysbiosis, and bacterial translocation, promoting an inflammatory state that can lead to the progression of liver disease and development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to investigate whether beta blockers (BBs), which can mediate portal hypertension, conferred survival benefits in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We conducted a retrospective, observational study of 578 patients with unresectable HCC treated with ICI from 2017 to 2019 at 13 institutions across three continents. BB use was defined as exposure to BBs at any time during ICI therapy. The primary objective was to assess the association of BB exposure with overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives were to evaluate the association of BB use with progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST 1.1 criteria. In our study cohort, 203 (35%) patients used BBs at any point during ICI therapy. Of these, 51% were taking a nonselective BB. BB use was not significantly correlated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.12, 95% CI 0.9-1.39, P = 0.298), PFS (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83-1.26, P = 0.844) or ORR (odds ratio [OR] 0.84, 95% CI 0.54-1.31, P = 0.451) in univariate or multivariate analyses. BB use was also not associated with incidence of adverse events (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96-1.97, P = 0.079). Specifically, nonselective BB use was not correlated with OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66-1.33, P = 0.721), PFS (HR 0.92, 0.66-1.29, P = 0.629), ORR (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.58-2.49, P = 0.623), or rate of adverse events (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.46-1.47, P = 0.510). In this real-world population of patients with unresectable HCC treated with immunotherapy, BB use was not associated with OS, PFS or ORR.

The Role of Non-Selective Beta-Blockers (NSBBs) in Liver Cirrhosis

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are one of the recommended treatments for portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis (LC). NSBB plays the role of primary as well as secondary prophylactic upper gastrointestinal bleeding in LC. NSBB therapy has been shown to effectively reduce the risk of variceal bleeding, reduction of portal pressure, and treat other complications of portal hypertension. The safety of NSBB therapy in cirrhosis requires a good therapeutic guide and considers the side effects. The indication of NSBB administration is adjusted according to the cirrhosis stage and the specific pathophysiology that occurs in cirrhosis. Conventional NSBBs such as propranolol and nadolol which are antagonists of β1 and β2 adrenergic receptors would induce decreased cardiac output and splanchnic vasoconstriction. Carvedilol is an NSBB with the addition of α1-adrenergic activity in reducing portal pressure stronger than conventional NSBB, so carvedilol can cause greater systemic arterial pressure reduction when compared to conventional NSBB. The appropriate treatment strategies can be applied in the use of NSBB to prevent more severe complications and reduce morbidity and mortality.

Review article: controversies surrounding the use of carvedilol and other beta blockers in the management of portal hypertension and cirrhosis.

Advanced chronic liver disease is an increasing cause of premature morbidity and mortality in the UK. Portal hypertension is the primary driver of decompensation, including the development of ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and variceal haemorrhage. Non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) reduce portal pressure and are well established in the prevention of variceal haemorrhage. Carvedilol, a newer NSBB, is more effective at reducing portal pressure due to additional α-adrenergic blockade and has additional anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic effects. To summarise the available evidence on the use of beta blockers, specifically carvedilol, in cirrhosis, focussing on when and why to start METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed for relevant publications. International guidelines advise the use of NSBB in primary prophylaxis against variceal haemorrhage in those with high-risk varices, with substantial evidence of efficacy comparable with endoscopic band ligation (EBL). NSBB are also well established in secondary prophylaxis, in combination with EBL. More controversial is their use in patients without large varices, but with clinically significant portal hypertension. However, there is gathering evidence that NSBB, particularly carvedilol, reduce the risk of decompensation and improve survival. While caution is advised in patients with advanced cirrhosis and refractory ascites, recent evidence suggests that NSBB can continue to be used safely, and that premature discontinuation may be detrimental. With increasing evidence of benefit independent of variceal bleeding, namely retardation of decompensation and improvement in survival, it is time to consider whether carvedilol should be offered to all patients with advanced chronic liver disease.

Prognostic implications of systolic function in patients with cirrhosis

IntroductionLV intrinsic systolic cardiac function in cirrhotic patients is conditioned by the degree of sympathetic activation and the use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs). Systolic function can be non-invasively measured by ultrasound using Ejection Intraventricular Pressure Differences in the LV (EIVPD). We aimed to address the relationship between systolic function and long-term clinical outcomes using EIVPD. MethodsWe studied 45 Child–Pugh B or C patients (13 female, 24 on NSBBs) using echocardiography. The primary endpoint was the combination of any-cause mortality or liver transplantation. After a follow-up of 7 years (796 person-months) and a median period of 17 (10–42) months, 41 patients (91%) reached the primary endpoint: 13 (29%) died and 28 (62%) underwent transplantation. ResultsBy univariable analysis the primary endpoint was related exclusively to MELD score. However, in a multivariable proportional-hazards analysis, adjusted for age, sex and MELD score, EIVPD was inversely related to the primary endpoint, showing interaction with NSBBs. In patients without NSBBs, EIVPD inversely predicted the primary endpoint, whereas in patients with NSBBs, EIVPD was unrelated to outcomes. These relationships were undetected by myocardial strain or conventional cardiac indices. ConclusionsLV intrinsic systolic function, as noninvasively measured by EIVPD is a predictor of long-term outcomes in patients with cirrhosis. The prognostic value of EIVPD is present along any degree of liver dysfunction but blunted by NSBBs. Because NSBBs have a deep effect on myocardial contractility, these drugs need to be considered when assessing the prognostic implications of cardiac function in these patients.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends that patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD; due to viruses, alcohol, and/or nonobese [BMI < 30 kg/m2] nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) and clinically significant portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] > 10 mmHg and/or liver stiffness by transient elastography > 25 kPa) should receive, if no contraindications, nonselective beta blocker (NSBB) therapy (preferably carvedilol) to prevent the development of variceal bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in those patients unable to receive NSBB therapy with a screening upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy that demonstrates high risk esophageal varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the endoscopic prophylactic treatment of choice. EBL should be repeated every 2-4 weeks until variceal eradication is achieved. Thereafter, surveillance EGD should be performed every 3-6 months in the first year following eradication.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage (UGIH) and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤70 g/L prompting RBC transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin of 70-90 g/L is desired.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends that patients with ACLD presenting with suspected acute variceal bleeding be risk stratified according to the Child-Pugh score and MELD score, and by documentation of active/inactive bleeding at the time of upper GI endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5 : ESGE recommends the vasoactive agents terlipressin, octreotide, or somatostatin be initiated at the time of presentation in patients with suspected acute variceal bleeding and be continued for a duration of up to 5 days.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends antibiotic prophylaxis using ceftriaxone 1 g/day for up to 7 days for all patients with ACLD presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage, or in accordance with local antibiotic resistance and patient allergies.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends, in the absence of contraindications, intravenous erythromycin 250 mg be given 30-120 minutes prior to upper GI endoscopy in patients with suspected acute variceal hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends that, in patients with suspected variceal hemorrhage, endoscopic evaluation should take place within 12 hours from the time of patient presentation provided the patient has been hemodynamically resuscitated.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 : ESGE recommends EBL for the treatment of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH).Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 : ESGE recommends that, in patients at high risk for recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding following successful endoscopic hemostasis (Child-Pugh C ≤ 13 or Child-Pugh B > 7 with active EVH at the time of endoscopy despite vasoactive agents, or HVPG > 20 mmHg), pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) within 72 hours (preferably within 24 hours) must be considered.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 11 : ESGE recommends that, for persistent esophageal variceal bleeding despite vasoactive pharmacological and endoscopic hemostasis therapy, urgent rescue TIPS should be considered (where available).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 12 : ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for acute gastric (cardiofundal) variceal (GOV2, IGV1) hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 13: ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or EBL in patients with GOV1-specific bleeding.Strong recommendations, moderate quality evidence. 14: ESGE suggests urgent rescue TIPS or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for gastric variceal bleeding when there is a failure of endoscopic hemostasis or early recurrent bleeding.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 15: ESGE recommends that patients who have undergone EBL for acute EVH should be scheduled for follow-up EBLs at 1- to 4-weekly intervals to eradicate esophageal varices (secondary prophylaxis).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 16: ESGE recommends the use of NSBBs (propranolol or carvedilol) in combination with endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis in EVH in patients with ACLD.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

Nonselective beta-blocker use is associated with increased hepatic encephalopathy-related readmissions in cirrhosis.

BACKGROUNDHepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a neurocognitive condition in cirrhosis leading to frequent hospitalizations. Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment in cirrhotic patients. We hypothesized that since NSBBs decrease cardiac output and portal flow, the decreased metabolic filtering process of liver parenchyma may lead to increased HE-related hospitalizations.AIMTo evaluate the impact of NSBB administration on HE-related readmissions in cirrhotic patients.METHODSIn this retrospective cohort study, we included 393 patients admitted to Baylor University Medical Center for liver-related portal hypertension indications between January 2013 and July 2018. Independent predictors of the first HE-related readmissions were identified using Cox proportional hazards analysis. The cumulative incidence of the first HE-related readmissions between patients receiving NSBBs and not receiving NSBBs was examined using Fine-Gray modeling to account for the competing risk of death or liver transplantation.RESULTSThe mean age was 58.1 ± 10.2 years and most patients fell into Child class C (49.1%) or B (43.8%). The median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium score was 22 (IQR: 11). The cumulative incidence of the first HE-related readmissions was significantly higher in patients taking NSBBs compared to patients not receiving NSBBs (71.8% vs 41.8%, P < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, after adjusting for demographics, markers of liver disease severity, selective beta-blocker, lactulose and rifaximin use, NSBB use [Hazard ratio: 1.74 (95%CI: 1.29-2.34)] was independently associated with the first HE-related readmissions over a median follow-up of 3.8 years. CONCLUSIONNSBB use is independently associated with increased HE-related readmissions in patients with cirrhosis, regardless of liver disease severity.

Impact of endoscopic ultrasound examination for deep esophageal collateral veins evaluation in liver cirrhosis patients prior to endoscopic treatment: A case series

AbstractAimThe presence of esophageal collateral veins (ECV) has been reported to be associated with the recurrence of esophageal varices (EV) and bleeding in liver cirrhotic (LC) patients. This study aimed to see the potential clinical value of deep collateral veins assessment using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in liver cirrhotic patients with EV.MethodsDuring 6 months period, a prospective study is conducted, where we identified LC patients who were admitted for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) screening at the Department of Internal Medicine, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital, Jakarta. ECV was examined using EUS. Patients were excluded if they had (1) liver malignancy, (2) history of ligation or glue injection, or (3) portal or splenic vein thrombus. We collected demographic data, medical history, data pertaining to use of nonselective beta blocker (NSBB), and laboratory, imaging, and endoscopy results. EGD was performed using a gastroscope (EG29‐i10, 3.2 mm Pentax Medical) while EUS was performed using a linear array echoendoscope (EG‐3870UTK, 3.8 mm, Pentax Medical) before band ligation or glue injection.ResultsThere were 20 LC patients included in this study, where 15 (75%) of patients were classified with Child–Pugh (CP)‐A and five (25%) of patients with CP‐B. The most common aetiologies were hepatitis B in seven (35%) patients and hepatitis C in nine (45%) patients. The EV with peri‐ or para‐esophageal veins (PEEV or PAEV) were detected in 65% of patients. None of the LC patients with no EV showed the presence of ECV. PEEV or PAEV were detected in grades 1–3 EV.ConclusionEUS examination can give a better evaluation before managing gastroesophageal varices through deep ECV detection in LC patients.

Association Between Nonselective Beta-Blocker Use and Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B Without Cirrhosis and Decompensation.

Background: Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) can reduce the incidence or mortality of certain types of cancers, and NSBBs exert a protective effect on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis. However, the potential preventive effect of NSBBs has not yet been investigated in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) who have a high HCC risk regardless of the presence of underlying cirrhosis. Aim: This study evaluated the association between NSBB use and HCC incidence in patients with CHB without cirrhosis and decompensation. Methods: From the 2000 Longitudinal Generation Tracking Database, we enrolled patients who were newly diagnosed as having CHB from January 2001 to December 2011 and then followed them up for at least 5 years. To estimate the causal effect of NSBBs on the time-to-event outcomes of HCC, a marginal Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: After adjustment, no significant benefit of HCC risk reduction was observed between the NSBB users and nonusers (adjusted HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.52–1.31). The cumulative defined daily dose (cDDD) analysis revealed no significant dose correlation among the three groups [adjusted HR (95% CI): 1.08, (0.56–2.05), 0.54 (0.17–1.77), and 0.76 (0.40–1.42) in the <90 cDDD, 90 to <180 cDDD, and ≥180 cDDD groups, respectively]. Duration-dependent associations were not observed. Multivariable stratified analysis results demonstrated that HCC risk markedly decreased in the patients aged >55 years (adjusted HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25–0.96; p = 0.04). Conclusion: NSBB did not significantly prevent HCC in the patients with CHB infection without cirrhosis and decompensation. This study provided one of valuable results that it is not clinically required to use NSBBs as recommended chemoprevention for HCC in high-risk patients who have CHB.

Risk Factors for Esophageal Collateral Veins in Cirrhosis with and without Previous Endoscopic Esophageal Variceal Therapy.

Background Portosystemic collateral vessels are a sign of portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis. Esophageal collateral veins (ECVs) are one major type of portosystemic collateral vessels, which increase the recurrence of esophageal varices and bleeding after variceal eradication. However, the risk factors for ECVs were still unclear. Methods We retrospectively screened cirrhotic patients who had contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) images to evaluate ECVs and upper gastrointestinal endoscopic reports to evaluate gastroesophageal varices at our department. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the independent risk factors for ECVs. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed in patients with and without previous endoscopic variceal therapy which primarily included endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS). Results Overall, 243 patients were included, in whom the prevalence of ECVs was 53.9%. The independent risk factors for ECVs were hepatitis C virus infection (OR = 0.250, p = 0.026), previous EVL (OR = 1.929, p = 0.044), platelet (OR = 0.993, p = 0.008), and esophageal varices needing treatment (EVNTs) (OR = 2.422, p = 0.006). The prevalence of ECVs was 60.8% (73/120) in patients undergoing EVL, 50% (10/20) in those undergoing EIS, and 47.5% (48/101) in those without previous endoscopic variceal therapy. The independent risk factors for ECVs were the use of nonselective beta-blockers (OR = 0.294, p = 0.042) and EVNTs (OR = 3.714, p = 0.006) in subgroup analyses of patients with and without previous endoscopic variceal therapy, respectively. Conclusions The presence of ECVs should be closely associated with the severity of portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis. Risk of ECVs might be increased by previous EVL.