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)     

Portal pressure, presence of gastroesophageal varices and variceal bleeding

This study was performed to examine the relationships between portal pressure measurements and the presence of esophagogastric varices, the size of varices and the occurrence of hemorrhage from varices in 93 patients with alcoholic cirrhosis, using standardized measurements of portal pressure by hepatic vein catheterization. The mean hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG) was significantly higher in 49 patients who had bled from varices than in 44 cirrhotic patients who had not (20.4 +/- 5.1 vs. 16.0 +/- 5.2; p less than 0.001). None of the 49 patients who had bled from varices had an HVPG less than 12 mm Hg. Among the 87 patients who had been examined by endoscopy for varices, all 72 with varices had an HVPG greater than 12 mm Hg. Six of 15 cirrhotic patients without varices had HVPG less than 12 mm Hg. The mean HVPG in the 15 patients without varices (15.1 +/- 6.8 mm Hg) was lower than the 72 patients with varices (19.3 +/- 4.8 mm Hg; p less than 0.01). Of the 72 patients with varices, 40 had large varices, 28 had small varices, and in four patients variceal size could not be assessed adequately. The mean HVPG was similar in the patients with large or small varices (19.8 +/- 4.8 vs. 18.3 +/- 5.0 mm Hg; p greater than 0.10). There was a positive relationship between the presence of large varices and the occurrence of bleeding from varices.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Predictive value of the variceal pressure response to continued pharmacological therapy in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension

Noninvasive measurements of variceal pressure adequately reflect the hemodynamic effects of propranolol on portal hypertension. However, the prognostic value of variceal pressure responses during continued propranolol therapy has not been evaluated, and it is unclear whether this may substitute invasive measurements of portal pressure response. Fifty-five portal hypertensive patients with cirrhosis were studied before and at 4 months of continued propranolol therapy. Variceal pressure was measured using an endoscopic pressure gauge. Portal pressure was evaluated as the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). Over a 28 +/- 11 month follow-up, 16 patients experienced variceal bleeding. Baseline characteristics were similar in bleeders and nonbleeders. At 4 months, reduction in variceal pressure was less marked in bleeders than in nonbleeders (5% +/- 20% vs. -15% +/- 24%; P =.03). A fall in variceal pressure 20% or greater of baseline was an independent predictor of absence of variceal bleeding; which occurred in 5% of patients with a 20% or greater fall in variceal pressure versus 42% of patients with less than a 20% reduction (P =.004). The HVPG response had similar independent prognostic value (decrease > or =20%: 6% bleeding; decrease <20%: 45% bleeding; P =.004) but identified different patients. Achieving a 20% decrease in either variceal pressure or HVPG was highly sensitive (85%) and specific (93%) identifying patients not bleeding on follow-up. Endoscopic measurements of variceal pressure response to continued pharmacotherapy provide useful prognostic information on the risk of variceal bleeding. As with HVPG response, a fall in variceal pressure of 20% or greater is associated with a very low risk of variceal bleeding. The combination of both parameters allows almost optimal prognostication.     

Prevalence, classification and natural history of gastric varices: a long-term follow-up study in 568 portal hypertension patients.

To determine the prevalence and natural history of gastric varices, we prospectively studied 568 patients (393 bleeders and 175 nonbleeders) with portal hypertension (cirrhosis in 301 patients, noncirrhotic portal fibrosis in 115 patients, extrahepatic portal vein obstruction in 117 patients and hepatic venous outflow obstruction in 35 patients). Primary (present at initial examination) gastric varices were seen in 114 (20%) patients; more were present in bleeders than in non-bleeders (27% vs. 4%, respectively; p < 0.001). Secondary (occurring after obliteration of esophageal varices) gastric varices developed in 33 (9%) patients during follow-up of 24.6 +/- 5.3 mo. Gastric varices (compared with esophageal varices) bled in significantly fewer patients (25% vs. 64%, respectively). Gastric varices had a lower bleeding risk factor than did esophageal varices (2.0 +/- 0.5 vs. 4.3 +/- 0.4, respectively) but bled more severely (4.8 +/- 0.6 vs. 2.9 +/- 0.3 transfusion units per patient, respectively). Once a varix bled, mortality was more likely (45%) in gastric varix patients. Gastric varices were classified as gastroesophageal or isolated gastric varices. Type 1 gastroesophageal varices (lesser curve varices) were the most common (75%). After obliteration of esophageal varices, type 1 gastroesophageal varices disappeared in 59% of patients and persisted in the remainder; bleeding from persistent gastroesophageal varices was more common than it was from gastroesophageal varices that were obliterated (28% vs. 2%, respectively; p < 0.001). Type 2 gastroesophageal varices, which extend to greater curvature, bled often (55%) and were associated with high mortality. Type 1 isolated gastric varices patients had only fundal varices, with a high (78%) incidence of bleeding.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Terlipressin is more effective in decreasing variceal pressure than portal pressure in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Terlipressin decreases portal pressure. However, its effects on variceal pressure have been poorly investigated. This study investigated the variceal, splanchnic and systemic hemodynamic effects of terlipressin. METHODS: Twenty cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices grade II-III, and portal pressure > or =12 mmHg were studied. Hepatic venous pressure gradient, variceal pressure and systemic hemodynamic parameters were obtained. After baseline measurements, in a double-blind administration, 14 patients received a 2mg/iv injection of terlipressin and six patients received placebo. The same measurements were repeated 60 min later. RESULTS: No demographic or biochemical differences were observed in basal condition between groups. Terlipressin produced significant decreases in intravariceal pressure from 20.9+4.9 to 16.3+/-4.7 mmHg (p<0.01, -21+/- 16%), variceal pressure gradient from 18.9+/-4.8 to 13.5+/-6.0 mmHg (p<0.01, -28+/-27%), estimated variceal wall tension from 78+/-29 to 59+/-31 mmHg x mm (p<0.01, -27+/-22%), and hepatic venous pressure gradient from 19.4+/-4.5 to 16.8+/-5 mmHg (p<0.01, -14+/-12%) at 60 min. The change in variceal pressure after 60 min of terlipressin administration was greater than the change in wedge hepatic venous pressure (-4.7 mmHg vs -0.5 mmHg, respectively, p<0.0001). Terlipressin also caused significant decreases in heart rate and cardiac index and increases in mean arterial pressure and peripheral vascular resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that terlipressin produces significant and prolonged decreases in variceal pressure and variceal wall tension and has intrinsic effects on portal pressure and systemic hemodynamics. Variceal pressure provides a better assessment of the effects of terlipressin administration on esophageal varices than hepatic venous pressure gradient.     

Noninvasive measurement of the pressure of esophageal varices using an endoscopic gauge: comparison with measurements by variceal puncture in patients undergoing endoscopic sclerotherapy

Measurements of variceal pressure with a noninvasive endoscopic pressure gauge and by direct variceal puncture were performed in 20 cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension in the course of the first session of therapeutic sclerotherapy following an episode of variceal bleeding. Endoscopic gauge measurements of the pressure of esophageal varices gave similar values (15.5 +/- 2.7 mm Hg) than measurements by variceal puncture (15.4 +/- 2.4 mm Hg; not statistically significant), and there was a highly significant linear correlation between both measurements (r = 0.9, p less than 0.001). Azygos blood flow, that was markedly increased in these patients (852 +/- 399 ml per min), was directly related to variceal pressure (r = 0.73, p less than 0.01). Variceal pressure was significantly lower than portal pressure (18.8 +/- 5.0 mm Hg) (p less than 0.05), indicating that measurements of variceal pressure cannot substitute measurements of portal pressure. The study demonstrates that the noninvasive endoscopic gauge technique allows an accurate estimation of variceal pressure in patients with portal hypertension. This technique may provide additional useful information in the evaluation of portal hypertension as well as on the mechanism of variceal bleeding.     

Intravascular oesophageal variceal pressure (IOVP) assessed by endoscopic fine needle puncture under basal conditions, Valsalva's manoeuvre and after glyceryltrinitrate application.

A simple and safe procedure providing sensitive and reproducible direct measurement of intravascular oesophageal variceal pressure (IOVP) during routine oesophagoscopy is described. The method requires only commercially available equipment. First results were obtained in 16 patients with oesophageal varices caused by liver cirrhosis (Child's A) can be summarised as follows: intravascular oesophageal variceal pressure was nearly identical in different varices of the single patient. Varices grade III exhibited a significantly higher intravascular oesophageal variceal pressure than varices grade II (22.7 +/- 2.5 vs 15.7 +/- 0.6 mmHg, p less than 0.05). After Valsalva's manoeuvre there was a remarkable increase in intravascular oesophageal variceal pressure by 13.6 +/- 1.0 mmHg irrespective of the variceal size. The high intravascular oesophageal variceal pressure values observed in grade III varices during the rise of the intraabdominal pressure may indicate an important risk factor for variceal haemorrhage. Glyceryltrinitrate (1.2 mg sprayed onto the tongues of 14 patients) very effectively lowered the intravascular oesophageal variceal pressure from 22.8 +/- 2.0 to 12.0 +/- 0.4 mmHg in grade III varices, and from 16.3 +/- 0.4 to 10.0 +/- 0.4 mmHg in grade II varices (p less than 0.005 in both groups). We conclude that this method provides a suitable tool to study the effect of drugs with presumed influence on the oesophageal variceal pressure and that the impressive effect of glyceryltrinitrate in lowering intravascular oesophageal variceal pressure warrants further study on the effect of longer acting nitrates on intravascular oesophageal variceal pressure, and the rebleeding rate after oesophageal variceal haemorrhage.     

Propranolol in primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding among cirrhotics in India: a hemodynamic evaluation

OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we attempted to complete the hemodynamic assessment of propranolol response in cirrhotics with esophageal varices at high risk of bleeding, in one sitting, so as to identify nonresponders at the earliest. Some noninvasive indicators of this response were also evaluated. METHODS: Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) was measured in 33 such cases (18 nonbleeders, 15 bleeders) before and 90 min after an oral dose of 80 mg propranolol, and reduction by > or =20% taken as responder. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients (66.67%) responded (HVPG reduction > or =26%), whereas 11 (33.33%) did not (HVPG reduction < or =6%). Postdrug HVPG between responders and nonresponders showed a significant difference (p < 0.001). Neither baseline HVPG (p > 0.1), baseline CI (p = 0.665), nor baseline stroke volume index (p > 0.1) could predict responder status. Difference of HVPG reduction (percent) between bleeders (21.49 +/- 35.53) and nonbleeders (40.58 +/- 23.95) approached, but did not reach, statistical significance (p = 0.076). However, logistic regression showed this difference to be significant (p = 0.026). Age of responders was found to be significantly lower than that of nonresponders (p approximately equals 0.05). During a follow-up of 9-38 months, only one of 22 responders (on propranolol) had an episode of variceal bleed. None in whom HVPG fell to < or = 12 mm Hg bled. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that single-sitting hemodynamic assessment of acute response to high-dose oral propranolol clearly differentiates between responders and nonresponders. Moreover, it appears that prior history of variceal bleeding and old age negatively influences the effect of propranolol.     

Double-blind investigation of the effects of propranolol and placebo on the pressure of esophageal varices in patients with portal hypertension

This study was aimed at investigating the effects of propranolol on esophageal variceal pressure in patients with portal hypertension. Variceal pressure was measured at endoscopy using a miniature pressure-sensitive gauge in 20 patients with portal hypertension. Measurements were obtained under baseline conditions and 20 min after double-blind administration of propranolol (0.15 mg/kg; n = 10) or an identical amount of placebo (normal saline, 0.3 ml/kg; n = 10). Under baseline conditions, variceal pressure was similar in propranolol and placebo groups (14.1 +/- 5 mm Hg vs. 14.9 +/- 6.6 mm Hg, respectively; not significant). Placebo had no significant effect on variceal pressure (baseline = 14.9 +/- 6.6 mm Hg; placebo = 15.5 +/- 6.6 mm Hg; not significant), and values after placebo administration were closely correlated with baseline values (r = 0.98; y = 1.1 + 0.97 x; p less than 0.0001). In contrast, propranolol caused a significant decrease in the pressure of esophageal varices (from 14.1 +/- 5 mm Hg to 11.3 +/- 4.4 mm Hg; p less than 0.0002). No significant changes in the size of esophageal varices were observed after propranolol or placebo administration. This study shows (a) the endoscopic pressure-gauge technique has a low variability and may be used to assess acute drug-induced changes in variceal pressure; and (b) propranolol causes significant decreases in variceal pressure in patients with portal hypertension and esophageal varices.     

The effects of chronic endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy on portal pressure in cirrhotics

The effect of obliterating esophageal varices by endoscopic sclerotherapy on portal pressure was prospectively studied in 11 cirrhotic patients with variceal hemorrhage. Portal venous pressure gradient, determined as the difference between transhepatic portal and hepatic vein pressure, increased by a mean of 31.1% +/- 14.5% in 8 (73%) and decreased by a mean of 30.1% +/- 11.7% in 3 (27%) patients, with no statistically significant change overall (P = 0.1). These changes in portal venous pressure gradient occurred despite an improvement in the laboratory and clinical parameters of hepatic function. Deep abdominal sonography with color flow imaging at variceal obliteration showed patent paraumbilical veins in 6 (55%) patients, 3 of whom had decreases in portal venous pressure gradient (29%, 19%, 42.5%) at variceal obliteration. In 5 (45%) patients without patent paraumbilical veins, a statistically significant increase in portal venous pressure gradient between initial endoscopic variceal sclerotherapy and variceal obliteration was noted (P = 0.008). Rebleeding (single episode in all 4 patients, before obliteration in 3 patients) occurred in those with an increase in portal venous pressure gradient; all patients with portal venous pressure gradient decreases were nonbleeders. No correlation between changes in portal venous pressure gradient and time to variceal obliteration, number of sclerotherapy treatments, or rebleeding episodes was observed. Thus, an increase in portal venous pressure gradient was noted in the majority of patients at variceal obliteration. Although the portal venous pressure gradient decrease may be explained by a patent paraumbilical vein, the mechanism of portal venous pressure gradient increase is not clear. It is speculated that this portal venous pressure gradient increase may be caused by an increase in collateral resistance or flow or a combination of both, resulting from obliteration of esophageal varices by endoscopic sclerotherapy.     

Reduction of transmural oesophageal variceal pressure by metoclopramide

In nineteen patients with portal hypertension and oesophageal varices, transmural variceal blood pressure was determined endoscopically by direct puncture of the varices before and after intravenous administration of 20 mg metoclopramide or placebo. No change in pressure was observed after placebo (mean difference -1.3 +/- 24.5%, N.S.), however, metoclopramide reduced the pressure by 17.6 +/- 18.6% (p = 0.02). Our results suggest that metoclopramide may be beneficial for the prevention or treatment of variceal haemorrhage.     

Measurement and correlation of wedged hepatic, intrahepatic, intrasplenic and intravariceal pressures in patients with cirrhosis of liver and non-cirrhotic portal fibrosis.

In order to examine the relationship of various haemodynamic parameters in two different liver diseases, 10 patients with cirrhosis of liver and 14 patients with non-cirrhotic portal fibrosis were studied. In cirrhotics, mean (+/- SD) wedged hepatic (25.8 +/- 6.4 mmHg), intrahepatic (24.5 +/- 6.2 mmHg) and intrasplenic (25.0 +/- 5.6 mmHg) pressures correlated significantly (p less than 0.001) with intravariceal (25.2 +/- 6.7) pressure measurements. In patients with NCPF, mean (+/- SD) wedged hepatic (9.1 +/- 3.7 mmHg) and intraphepatic (15.4 +/- 5.8 mmHg) pressures were significantly (p less than 0.01) lower than the intrasplenic (24.5 +/- 4.2 mmHg) and intravariceal (23.96 +/- 5.6 mmHg) pressures. Two independent pressure gradients, one between intrasplenic and intrahepatic pressure (8.9 +/- 6.5 mmHg) and another between intrahepatic and wedged hepatic venous pressure (6.2 +/- 5.6 mmHg) were seen in non-cirrhotic portal fibrosis patients, indicating the likelihood of both pre- and perisinusoidal resistance to flow of portal venous blood in these patients. A highly significant (p less than 0.001) correlation between intravariceal and intrasplenic pressures was found in patients with cirrhosis of liver (r = 0.93), as well as in patients with non-cirrhotic portal fibrosis (r = 0.85). No correlation was found between the size of oesophageal varices and wedged hepatic and intrahepatic pressures. Patients with grade 4 varices had significantly higher intravariceal (p less than 0.01) and intrasplenic (p less than 0.05) pressure than patients with grade 2 varices. It can be concluded that intravariceal pressure is representative of portal pressure in patients with cirrhosis of liver as well as in non-cirrhotic portal fibrosis patients and it can be recommended as the single haemodynamic investigation in patients with portal hypertension and oesophageal varices.     

Relationship of portal pressure, anorectal varices and hemorrhoids in cirrhotic patients.

In a prospective study of 103 consecutive cirrhotic patients a high prevalence (43%) of anorectal varices was found compared with only 2% in 103 age- and sex-matched control subjects (p less than 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the prevalences of hemorrhoids in cirrhotic patients and in control subjects (79% vs. 83%, p greater than 0.05). The hepatic venous pressure gradient of cirrhotic patients with anorectal varices was similar to cirrhotic patients without anorectal varices (14 +/- 6 mmHg, n = 22, vs. 16 +/- 7 mmHg, n = 39, p greater than 0.05. There was no significant difference in the hepatic venous pressure gradient between cirrhotic patients with and without hemorrhoids (15 +/- 6 mmHg, n = 47, vs. 16 +/- 8 mmHg, n = 14, p greater than 0.05). The prevalence of anorectal varices and hemorrhoids in cirrhotic patients had no relation to Child-Pugh's grading, esophageal varices with and without sclerotherapy and ascites. We conclude that anorectal varices are common in cirrhotic patients. Anorectal varices and hemorrhoids are not related to the degree of portal pressure.     

The influence of endoscopic variceal ligation on the portal pressure gradient in cirrhotics

BACKGROUND/AIMS: After variceal eradication by endoscopic ligation, fundal varices and worsening of portal hypertensive gastropathy can occur. The aim of this study is to verify the impact of the eradication of esophageal varices by endoscopic ligation on the portal pressure gradient, worsening of portal hypertensive gastropathy and development of fundal varices. METHODOLOGY: Twenty-two (15M/7F, mean age: 54.5 years) cirrhotics with previous variceal bleeding were submitted to measurement of hepatic venous pressure gradient before and after variceal eradication by endoscopic ligation. RESULTS: The mean hepatic venous pressure gradient in the first measurement was 14.1 mmHg and after eradication, 13.5 mmHg (p = 0.403). After eradication, 12 patients experienced a reduction in portal pressure and 10, an elevation. Three patients developed fundal varices. Their mean gradient before treatment was 22 mmHg and 18.8 mmHg after therapy (p = 0.368). The gastropathy worsened in 9 patients (mean gradient before therapy of 15.2 mmHg; and 16.1 mmHg after treatment) (p = 0.303). The initial pressure gradient of these patients was not different from the other 13 cases (p = 0.463). CONCLUSIONS: The esophageal variceal eradication by endoscopic band ligation does not alter the hepatic venous pressure gradient. There is no significant variation in the portal pressure of patients in whom there was a worsening of portal hypertensive gastropathy or fundal varices development.     

Perendoscopic variceal pressure measurement: A reliable estimation of portal pressure in patients with cirrhosis?

OBJECTIVES: In patients with cirrhosis, the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is the reference method for the assessment of portal hypertension (PHT). Variceal pressure (VP) may be measured at endoscopy, but its relationship to the HVPG remains controversial. The aim of the study was to retrospectively compare HVPG and VP values obtained in a cohort of patients with cirrhosis and PHT. METHODS: Within 8 days (range: 6-10 days), 64 patients in a stable condition with biopsy-proven cirrhosis [alcoholic: 47; other 17; mean age: 56.5 yrs (35-70); mean Child-Pugh's score: 9.4 +/- 1.9; ascites: 37/64; previous variceal bleeding (="bleeders"): 24/64) and oesophageal varices (grade 2: 49; grade 3: 15)] underwent both measurement of the HVPG during transjugular liver biopsy and VP at endoscopy using a "home made" pressure sensitive gauge in the absence of needle puncture of the varix. Alcoholic hepatitis was present in 28 patients with alcoholic cirrhosis. RESULTS: The pressure sensitive gauge was well tolerated. The mean HVPG and VP values were 18.5 +/- 3.4 mmHg and 19 +/- 3.7 mmHg, respectively. A significant difference was observed between "bleeders" (n=24) and non "bleeders" (n=40) in terms of VP values (21.4 +/- 3.3 vs 17.2 +/- 3.2 mmHg, P<0.001), but not for HVPG values (19.4 +/- 4.1 vs 17.9 +/- 2.8 mmHg, P=0.075). A positive correlation was observed between VP and HVPG values (r=0.62, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this group of patients with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, a "home-made" pressure sensitive gauge allowed a non invasive perendoscopic measurement of VP. The positive correlation between VP and HVPG values suggests that measurement of VP may be a reliable estimate of portal pressure in these patients.     

Patients with ascites have higher variceal pressure and wall tension than patients without ascites

OBJECTIVE: It has been suggested that ascites is a risk factor for variceal bleeding. Recently, it has been demonstrated that total paracentesis decreases variceal pressure. However, no data are available showing the basal variceal pressure in patients with and without ascites. METHODS: We studied 76 cirrhotic patients, 49 with and 27 without ascites. Variceal pressure was measured by direct puncture. Variceal size, variceal pressure gradient, and variceal wall tension were also obtained. RESULTS: No demographic differences were observed between the groups. Child score was higher (9.7+/-1.5 vs 7.8+/-2.1, p < 0.001) and serum albumin lower (2.6+/-0.6 vs 3.0+/-0.7 mg %, p < 0.02) in ascitic than in nonascitic patients, respectively. Variceal pressure and variceal pressure gradient were significantly higher in patients with ascites than in those without ascites (25.0+/-6 vs 20.4+/-4.6 mm Hg, p < 0.001 and 18.75+/-4.7 vs 13.70+/-4.1 mm Hg, p < 0.0001, respectively). The variceal wall tension was significantly higher in patients with ascites (71.0+/-25.1 mm Hg/mm) than in those without ascites (55.1+/-22.1 mm Hg/mm, p < 0.03). No relationship was observed between variceal pressure gradient and liver function. Ascites patients included in Child-Pugh grade A+B presented a similar variceal pressure to Child C patients (18.5+/-4.2 vs 19.3+/-5.7 mm Hg, respectively, p = ns). In addition, no relationship was observed between variceal pressure gradient and etiology of cirrhosis. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that patients with ascites have significantly higher variceal pressure and wall tension than patients without ascites. These results suggest that patients with ascites may be at risk for variceal bleeding.     

Pre-primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding]

Portosystemic collateral formation, particularly at the gastroesophageal junction, is a most serious consequence of portal hypertension. Increased portal pressure is the most significant force underlying gastroesophageal variceal formation, to which end portal pressure (estimated from the hepatic venous pressure gradient) must reach at least 10 mmHg. Subsequently, splanchnic hyperemia also contributes to variceal development. Portoystemic collaterals result from repermeabilization of pre-extant vessels, vascular remodeling, and angiogenesis. The goal of pre-primary prophylaxis is preventing or delaying the formation of gastroesophageal varices. In experimental models of portal hypertension, early administration of splanchnic vasoconstrictors such as beta-blockers, nitric oxide synthesis inhibitors, or antiangiogenic substances inhibits portosystemic collateral formation. However, clinical trials of beta-blockers in patients with cirrhosis and no varices to delay variceal formation have failed to yield expected results.     

Endoscopic variceal ligation for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleed: preliminary report of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Prevention of variceal bleeding, a major cause of morbidity and mortality, is an important goal in the management of patients with portal hypertension (PHT). Although propranolol has been found useful in preventing the first episode of variceal bleeding (primary prophylaxis) in cirrhotic PHT, it has limitations which include side effects, contraindications, non-compliance and failure in some patients. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) has not been used for primary prophylaxis. METHODS: Thirty cirrhotic patients with PHT, grade III to IV oesophageal varices, hepatic venous pressure gradient > or = 12 mmHg and no prior history of upper gastrointestinal bleeding were randomized to receive propranolol (to reduce their pulse rate by 25% from baseline, n = 15) and EVL (weekly to fortnightly until variceal eradication, n = 15). The two groups were comparable. All the patients in EVL group had variceal eradication during 3.8 +/- 2.2 sessions. RESULTS: There was no major complication or interval bleeding. During a follow-up period of 17.6 +/- 4.7 months, varices recurred in three, two of which bled (successfully treated by EVL). In contrast, during this period of follow up one patient in the propranolol group had variceal bleeding (P=NS). Side effects of propranolol included symptomatic bradycardia requiring reduction of dose in one of 15 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although sample size in this study is small, it seems that EVL may be a good option for primary prophylaxis for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhotic PHT; further studies on a larger number of patients and longer follow up are required.     

Comparison between portal vein pressure and wedged hepatic vein pressure in hepatitis B-related cirrhosis

Portal vein pressure and wedged hepatic vein pressure were measured simultaneously in 21 patients with hepatitis B-related cirrhosis of the liver and were compared to pressure measured in six patients with idiopathic portal hypertension. No significant difference in the portal venous pressure gradient was found between patients with cirrhosis and those with idiopathic portal hypertension (17.3 +/- 4.3 mmHg (mean +/- S.D.) vs. 19.7 +/- 3.1 mmHg, P greater than 0.05). However, the difference between the portal and the hepatic venous pressure gradient was significantly smaller in patients with cirrhosis than in idiopathic portal hypertension patients (1.3 +/- 1.7 vs. 10.8 +/- 2.1 mmHg, P less than 0.001). An excellent correlation was found between portal vein pressure and wedged hepatic vein pressure in hepatitis B-related cirrhosis (r = 0.94, P less than 0.001). There was no linear relationship between the portal venous pressure gradient and varix size or bleeding episodes. We concluded that a close agreement existed between portal vein pressure and wedged hepatic vein pressure in hepatitis B-related liver cirrhosis. Therefore, measurement of wedged hepatic vein pressure reliably reflects portal vein pressure in these patients.     

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.