Development of Gastroesophageal Varices and Risk of Variceal Bleeding in Patients With Cirrhosis

Abstract: We studied the relationships between portal pressure measured using the portal venous pressure gradient, the development of gastroesophageal varices, and the risk of variceal bleeding in 56 patients with cirrhosis. Portal pressure was higher in patients with varices than in those without (P>0.01), and 11 mmHg was the lowest portal pressure measured in the patients with varices. The size of the varices was not associated with the portal pressure. There was no difference in the value of portal pressure measurements for the patients with variceal bleeding and those without and there was no linear-relationship between the degree of portal hypertension and the rate of variceal bleeding. 12 mmHg was the lowest portal pressure measured in the patients with variceal bleeding. The size of the varices was related to the rate of variceal bleeding (P>0.05). We conclude that (a) a portal pressure of 11 mmHg is necessary for the formation of varices, (b) 12 mmHg of portal pressure is necessary for variceal bleeding to occur but the degree of portal hypertension has no predictive value for the risk of variceal bleeding, and (c) the size of the varices does not depend on the degree of portal hypertension but is associated with the risk of variceal bleeding.     

Prognosis in patients with cirrhosis and mild portal hypertension

OBJECTIVE: Sixty to 70% of upper gastrointestinal bleeding episodes in patients with cirrhosis are caused by oesophageal varices. Prophylaxis is indicated in patients with varices and a hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) above 12 mmHg. The study of the natural history of patients with lower HVPG has been sparse. In this study, long-term survival and the risk of complications in mild portal hypertension were analysed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-one patients with cirrhosis and HVPG below 10 mmHg were included in the study. Data were collected from medical files and National Patient Registries. Variceal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy and death related to cirrhosis were registered. Thirty-nine patients were graded as Child class A, 19 as class B and 3 as class C. Median survival time was 11 years. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (46%) developed one or more complications: variceal bleeding in 10 (16%) and hepatic encephalopathy in 18 patients (30%). Twenty-three patients (38%) died from complications of cirrhosis. Two patients (3%) died from variceal bleeding, another two (3%) from gastrointestinal bleeding of unidentified source. Survival rate was significantly decreased compared with that in the background population. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of complications in patients with mild portal hypertension is considerable, and guidelines for follow-up or medical prophylaxis are warranted. The risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices is low and bleeding-related deaths rare.     

Portal hypertension: Pre-primary and primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding

In liver cirrhosis, variceal bleeding is the last in a chain of events initiated by the increase in portal pressure (estimated in clinical practice by the hepatic venous pressure gradient). When hepatic venous pressure gradient goes above 10 mmHg the patient is at risk of developing varices, and when hepatic venous pressure gradient reaches 12 mmHg variceal bleeding might develop. Currently, there is not any effective therapy for the prevention of the development of varices. When varices are small, beta-adrenergic blockers might prevent the enlargement of the varices, and may reduce the risk of variceal bleeding. In patients with medium to large varices, beta-blockers are clearly effective in reducing the risk of variceal bleeding. Endoscopic band ligation might be more effective than beta-blockers, but available evidence is still very weak.     

Prognosis in patients with cirrhosis and mild portal hypertension

Objective. Sixty to 70% of upper gastrointestinal bleeding episodes in patients with cirrhosis are caused by oesophageal varices. Prophylaxis is indicated in patients with varices and a hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) above 12 mmHg. The study of the natural history of patients with lower HVPG has been sparse. In this study, long-term survival and the risk of complications in mild portal hypertension were analysed. Material and methods. Sixty-one patients with cirrhosis and HVPG below 10 mmHg were included in the study. Data were collected from medical files and National Patient Registries. Variceal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy and death related to cirrhosis were registered. Thirty-nine patients were graded as Child class A, 19 as class B and 3 as class C. Median survival time was 11 years. Results. Twenty-eight patients (46%) developed one or more complications: variceal bleeding in 10 (16%) and hepatic encephalopathy in 18 patients (30%). Twenty-three patients (38%) died from complications of cirrhosis. Two patients (3%) died from variceal bleeding, another two (3%) from gastrointestinal bleeding of unidentified source. Survival rate was significantly decreased compared with that in the background population. Conclusions. The frequency of complications in patients with mild portal hypertension is considerable, and guidelines for follow-up or medical prophylaxis are warranted. The risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices is low and bleeding-related deaths rare.     

Pharmacological therapy of portal hypertension--focused on Korean data]

Portal hypertension as a consequence of liver cirrhosis is responsible for serious complications such as variceal bleeding, ascites and hepatic encephalopathy. Successful pharmacological treatment of portal hypertension can prevent the risk of the variceal bleeding, and contribute to reduce the morbidity and mortality in patients with liver cirrhosis. To identify the effect of drugs on portal hypertension, portal pressure was evaluated accurately before and after the drug administration. The hepatic venous pressure gradient has been accepted as the gold-standard method for assessing the severity of portal hypertension and the response to drug treatment. The mean hepatic venous pressure gradient was 15.1+/-5.4 mmHg in Korean cirrhotic patients who had experienced variceal bleeding. Non-selective beta blockers are the treatment of choice for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding. The dose of propranolol should be subsequently adjusted until the resting heart rate had been reduced by 25% or less than 55 beats per minute. It has been reported that the optimal dose of propranolol is variable due to racial differences in cardiovascular receptor sensitivity. In Korean patients with portal hypertension and liver cirrhosis, the mean required dose of propranolol to reach target heart rate was 165 mg (range; 80-280 mg). This review covers mainly the results of the pharmacological therapy of portal hypertension in Korean cirrhotic patients.     

The use of TIPS in chronic liver disease

The development of cirrhosis and portal hypertension in the natural history of chronic liver disease is associated with many complications. A transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPS) is a metal prosthesis that has been shown to be very effective in lowering sinusoidal portal pressure, and therefore is effective in the management of complications of cirrhosis, especially those related to portal hypertensive bleeding and sodium and water retention. In patients with acute variceal bleeding not responding to pharmacologic and endoscopic treatments, a reduction of the hepatic venous pressure gradient to < 12 mmHg or by > 20% with TIPS has been shown to be effective in controlling the acute bleed and in preventing rebleeding. For stable patients whose acute variceal bleed is controlled, TIPS is equal to combined beta-blocker and band ligation in the prevention of recurrent variceal bleed. TIPS is also more effective than large volume paracentesis in the control of refractory ascites, and may confer a survival advantage over repeated large volume paracentesis. TIPS has also been used in the management of other complications related to portal hypertension including ectopic varices, hepatic hydrothorax, and hepatorenal syndrome with some success, but experience is still rather limited. Miscellaneous uses include treatment of Budd Chiari Syndrome, portal hypertensive gastropathy and hepatopulmonary syndrome. Careful patient selection is vital to a successful outcome, as patients with severe liver dysfunction tend to die post-TIPS despite a functioning shunt. All patients who require a TIPS for treatment of complications of cirrhosis should be referred for consideration of liver transplant.     

Variceal pressure is a strong predictor of variceal haemorrhage in patients with cirrhosis as well as in patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension

BACKGROUND: Variceal pressure is a strong predictor for a first variceal bleed in patients with cirrhosis. AIMS: To evaluate whether variceal pressure is also a determinant of the risk of a first variceal bleed in patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension. METHODS: Variceal pressure was measured non-invasively in 25 patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension and large varices while receiving a stable therapeutic regimen. Factors predictive of bleeding were compared with those observed in 87 cirrhotics. RESULTS: The one year incidence of variceal bleeding was 32% (n=28) for the cirrhotic and 20% (n=5) for the non-cirrhotic patients. There was no difference in factors predicting the risk of bleeding between the groups, except for variceal pressure. For the same level of variceal pressure, the risk of variceal bleeding was lower in patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed the following variables as having a significant predictive power: variceal pressure (p=0.0001), red spots (p=0.004), and the time interval between the first observation of the varices and the moment of variceal pressure measurement (p=0. 0046). For the non-cirrhotics the risk of bleeding increased with higher Child-Pugh score (p=0.0024); this was not the case for the cirrhotic patients (p=0.9521). CONCLUSION: Variceal pressure is a major predictor of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis as well as in patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension. The risk of bleeding in non-cirrhotics is less than in cirrhotics for the same level of variceal pressure. In patients with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension the risk of variceal bleeding increases more with advancing disease.     

Correlation of hepatic venous pressure gradient with variceal bleeding, size of esophageal varices, etiology, ascites and degree of liver dysfunction in cirrhosis of liver

An elevated hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) has been associated with risk of variceal bleeding, and outcome and survival after variceal bleeding. In this pilot study, we measured HVPG in 40 patients with liver cirrhosis and studied its relationship with etiology of liver disease, esophageal variceal size, history of variceal bleeding or ascites, biochemical liver tests and Child-Pugh class. There was no procedurerelated complication. The mean (SD) HVPG was similar in patients who had history of variceal bleeding as compared to those who did not (15.4 [2.8] mmHg vs. 13.9 [2.7] mmHg, p=0.1); HVPG had no significant association with etiology of cirrhosis (p=0.4). HVPG levels were significantly higher in patients with larger esophageal varices (grade III/IV vs. I/II: 15.2 [2.7] mmHg vs.13.1 [2.8] mmHg, p=0.04), poorer Child-Pugh class (B or C versus A), and presence of ascites (p=0.04). Thus, HVPG correlated with variceal size, Child-Pugh class, and presence of ascites, but not with variceal bleeding status.     

Portal hypertension: a permissive factor only in the development of ascites and variceal bleeding

It is controversial whether the occurrence of ascites and gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhosis is related to the severity of portal hypertension. Portal pressure was examined in 124 unselected patients with portal hypertension due to chronic liver disease to evaluate this issue. Portal pressure was less in patients without complications of chronic liver disease (11.7 +/- 3.0 mmHg, n = 16) as compared to patients who had bled from varices or erosive gastritis (16.6 +/- 3.4 mmHg, p less than 0.001, n = 49), who had ascites (16.2 +/- 3.0 mmHg, p less than 0.001, n = 78) or both (16.5 +/- 3.0 mmHg, p less than 0.001, n = 19). Portal pressure was similar in patients bleeding from varices and erosive gastritis (16.7 +/- 3.4 mmHg, n = 43; vs 16.2 +/- 4.0 mmHg, n = 6, respectively) and in patients with refractory and nonrefractory ascites (16.2 +/- 3.5, n = 21; vs 16.2 +/- 3.5 mmHg, n = 57). The lowest portal pressure recorded in a patient with variceal bleeding was 9.0 mmHg. The lowest portal pressure recorded in a patient with ascites was 8.0 mmHg. Esophageal varices (graded 0-4 at endoscopy) were larger in patients with a history of bleeding from esophageal varices as compared to patients without such a history (3.2 +/- 0.7 vs 2.0 +/- 0.9, p less than 0.001). Serum albumin concentration was greater in patients without ascites as compared to patients with ascites (33 +/- 5 vs 26 +/- 5 g/l p less than 0.001) but was similar in patients with refractory and nonrefractory ascites (25 +/- 7 vs 26 +/- 5 g/l, respectively).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Editorial: Beta-blockers and the prevention of decompensation in cirrhosis: worth the trouble

Non-selective beta-blockers have been a cornerstone of therapy for prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding in cirrhosis patients for more than two decades. When lowering the hepatic vein portal pressure gradient (HVPG) below 12?mm?Hg or decreasing the pressure by 20% from baseline, these drugs are of proven benefit in reducing variceal bleeding and improving survival in this patient population. The recent work by Hendández-Gea et al., suggests that initiation of the beta-blocker nadolol in cirrhosis patients with high-risk varices can delay or prevent the first occurrence of clinically evident ascites. This finding comes with some caveats, however. The beneficial effect was only seen in patients who had an improvement by 10% or more from baseline HVPG pressure (only 51% of the treated patients in this study). This class of medications has some risk and tolerance issues, and many patients do not respond, even when the heart rate is optimally decreased. Despite this, the use of beta-blockers may be beneficial in the primary prevention of the formation of ascites and further decompensation of cirrhosis.     

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.     

Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding is the result of portal hypertension, which is a major complication of liver cirrhosis and carries a high mortality rate. Because of the mortality associated with variceal bleeding, strategies for prevention of the first bleed is important. Risk stratification is important in determining those at risk of bleeding from varices and current data suggest that patients with large varices with red signs, severe underlying liver disease and those who have a hepatic venous pressure gradient of greater than 12 mmHg are at high risk of bleeding. Surveillance for varices in patients with cirrhosis is therefore important. The current review evaluates the role of various treatments in the primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. The current first choice treatment is non-selective beta-blockers; which is cheap, easy to administer, and reduces the risk of first variceal haemorrhage significantly. Combination of beta-blockers and nitrates looks promising but needs further evaluation. Endoscopic variceal band ligation compares favourably with non-selective beta-blockers in preventing the first bleeding episode in cirrhotic patients and may be an alternative for patients who cannot tolerate, or have contraindications to beta-blockers. The role of monitoring the hepatic venous pressure gradient in those being treated with pharmacological agents, the role of newer drugs such as non-selective beta-blockers with intrinsic alpha-adrenergic activity and angiotensin receptor blockers require further evaluation.     

非选择性β受体拮抗剂在肝硬化门静脉高压患者中的合理应用

曲张静脉出血是肝硬化门静脉高压患者最常见和最严重的并发症之一。近三十余年来,尽管对其治疗取得了进展,但其相关病死率仍达15%～20%左右。不仅如此,曲张静脉出血常导致肝功能进一步的恶化,也是诱发肝硬化其他并发症的共同启动因素。因此,预防曲张静脉首次出血与再出血是提高失代偿期肝硬化和食管曲张静脉患者生存率的重要措施。非选择性β受体阻滞剂（nonselective beta-blockers,NSBB）因具有明确地降低肝静脉压力剃度的作用,被推荐用于预防曲张静脉首次出血和再出血。尽管该类药物具有耐受性好、口服方便和经济实惠的优点,但在使用过程中因存在副作用和潜在的不良作用,一般推荐应有选择地用于那些高危的曲张静脉患者。     

Use of portal pressure studies in the management of variceal haemorrhage

Portal hypertension occurs as a complication of liver cirrhosis and complications such as variceal bleeding lead to significant demands on resources. Endoscopy is the gold standard method for screening cirrhotic patients however universal endoscopic screening may mean a lot of unnecessary procedures as the presence of oesophageal varices is variable hence a large time and cost burden on endoscopy units to carry out both screening and subsequent follow up of variceal bleeds. A less invasive method to identify those at high risk of bleeding would allow earlier prophylactic measures to be applied. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is an acceptable indirect measurement of portal hypertension and predictor of the complications of portal hypertension in adult cirrhotics. Varices develop at a HVPG of 10-12 mmHg with the appearance of other complications with HPVG > 12 mmHg. Variceal bleeding does not occur in pressures under 12 mmHg. HPVG > 20 mmHg measured early after admission is a significant prognostic indicator of failure to control bleeding varices, indeed early transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in such circumstances reduces mortality significantly. HVPG can be used to identify responders to medical therapy. Patients who do not achieve the suggested reduction targets in HVPG have a high risk of rebleeding despite endoscopic ligation and may not derive significant overall mortality benefit from endoscopic intervention alone, ultimately requiring TIPS or liver transplantation. Early HVPG measurements following a variceal bleed can help to identify those at risk of treatment failure who may benefit from early intervention with TIPS. Therefore, we suggest using HVPG measurement as the investigation of choice in those with confirmed cirrhosis in place of endoscopy for intitial variceal screening and, where indicated, a trial of B-blockade, either intravenously during the initial pressure study with assessment of response or oral therapy with repeat HVPG six weeks later. In those with elevated pressures, primary medical prophylaxis could be commenced with subsequent close monitoring of HVPG thus negating the need for endoscopy at this point. All patients presenting with variceal haemorrhage should undergo HVPG measurement and those with a gradient greater than 20 mmHg should be considered for early TIPS. By introducing portal pressure studies into a management algorithm for variceal bleeding, the number of endoscopies required for further intervention and follow up can be reduced leading to significant savings in terms of cost and demand on resources.     

Indications for portal pressure measurement in chronic liver disease

Abstract Portal hypertension leads to development of serious complications such as esophageal varices, ascites, renal and cardiovascular dysfunction. The importance of the degree of portal hypertension has been substantiated within recent years. Measurement of the portal pressure is simple and safe and the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) independently predicts survival and development of complications such as ascites, HCC and bleeding from esophageal varices. Moreover, measurements of HVPG can be used to guide pharmacotherapy for primary and secondary prophylaxis for variceal bleeding. Assessment of HVPG should therefore be considered as a part of the general characterization of patients with portal hypertension in departments assessing and treating this condition.     

Natural history of patients with non cirrhotic portal hypertension: Comparison with patients with compensated cirrhosis

BackgroundThe knowledge of natural history of patients with portal hypertension (PH) not due to cirrhosis is less well known than that of cirrhotic patients.AimTo describe the clinical presentation and the outcomes of 89 patients with non-cirrhotic PH (25 with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension, INCPH, and 64 with chronic portal vein thrombosis, PVT) in comparison with 77 patients with Child A cirrhosis.MethodsThe patients were submitted to a standardized clinical, laboratory, ultrasonographic and endoscopic follow-up. Variceal progression, incidence of variceal bleeding, portal vein thrombosis, ascites and survival were recorded.ResultsAt presentation, the prevalence of varices, variceal bleeding and ascites was similar in the 3 groups. During follow-up, the rate of progression to varices at risk of bleeding (p < 0.0001) and the incidence of first variceal bleeding (p = 0.02) were significantly higher in non-cirrhotic then in cirrhotic patients. A PVT developed in 32% of INCPH patients and in 18% of cirrhotics (p = 0.02).ConclusionsIn the patients with non-cirrhotic PH variceal progression is more rapid and bleeding more frequent than in cirrhotics. Patients with INCPH are particularly prompt to develop PVT. This observational study suggests that the management of patients with non-cirrhotic PH should take into consideration the natural history of portal hypertension in these patients and cannot be simply derived by the observation of cirrhotic patients.     

Splenogastrorenal shunt in portal hypertension: a little known entity. Study of 6 cases and review of the literature

The authors report 6 cases of portal hypertension with gastrorenal shunt. This shunt did not arise from the left gastric vein, but from the splenic vein. Portal hypertension was related to alcoholic cirrhosis in 3 cases, to extensive portal thrombosis in 2 cases, and to nodular regenerative hyperplasia of the liver in one case. A gastrointestinal hemorrhage revealed portal hypertension and the liver disease in the 3 cases of alcoholic cirrhosis and complicated the course of the disease in the other cases. Hemorrhage was either massive and life-threatening or often recurred. It was related to a rupture of fundic varices in all cases. The fundic varices were not associated with esophageal varices in the 3 cases of cirrhosis. The degree of portal hypertension was above 20 mm Hg, as assessed by the portohepatic gradient (one case), or the pressure gradient between a tributary portal system vein and the inferior vena cava during laparotomy (5 cases). Definitive control of hemorrhage could not be achieved by endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy (2 cases) or percutaneous transhepatic embolization (one case). Portacaval shunt or splenectomy was performed in 5 cases. These findings suggest that spontaneous splenogastrorenal shunt is a clinical and hemodynamic entity which requires specific treatment when associated with gastric variceal bleeding.     

Indications for portal pressure measurement in chronic liver disease

Abstract

Portal hypertension leads to development of serious complications such as esophageal varices, ascites, renal and cardiovascular dysfunction. The importance of the degree of portal hypertension has been substantiated within recent years. Measurement of the portal pressure is simple and safe and the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) independently predicts survival and development of complications such as ascites, HCC and bleeding from esophageal varices. Moreover, measurements of HVPG can be used to guide pharmacotherapy for primary and secondary prophylaxis for variceal bleeding. Assessment of HVPG should therefore be considered as a part of the general characterization of patients with portal hypertension in departments assessing and treating this condition.     

Clinical pharmacology of portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is an increase in pressure in the portal vein and its tributaries. It is defined as a portal pressure gradient (the difference in pressure between the portal vein and the hepatic veins) greater than 5 mm Hg. Although this gradient defines portal hypertension, a gradient of 10 mm Hg or greater defines clinically significant portal hypertension, because this pressure gradient predicts the development of varices, decompensation of cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The most direct consequence of portal hypertension is the development of gastroesophageal varices that may rupture and lead to the development of variceal hemorrhage. This article reviews the pathophysiologic bases of the different pharmacologic treatments for portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis and places them in the context of the natural history of varices and variceal hemorrhage.     

Oesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients: from variceal screening to primary prophylaxis of the first oesophageal variceal bleeding

Bleeding from oesophageal varices is still a lethal complication in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Approximately 5–10% of patients with cirrhosis will develop oesophageal varices per year, and about 25–30% of cirrhotic patients with oesophageal varices and without previous variceal haemorrhage will bleed from ruptured varices. To date, data on preventing the formation/growth of oesophageal varices (preprimary prophylaxis) are conflicting, with insufficient evidence to use β‐blockers. There is evidence for the need for primary prophylaxis, and both β‐blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation have shown the same efficacy in preventing first bleeding, but which one to prefer is still controversial. The present article reviews the established and potential therapeutic strategies for preventing the development and rupture of oesophageal varices.