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

BACKGROUND: 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. AIM: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Risk stratifying gastric ulcers: development and validation of a scoring system.

Objective: Debate is ongoing regarding the need for universal endoscopic follow-up to ensure gastric ulcer healing. We aimed to assess the value of follow-up oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopies (OGDs) for gastric ulcer healing and stratify patients according to risk of malignancy by developing a risk score. Design/method: All patients in National Health Service (NHS) Lothian with an index OGD and a diagnosis of gastric ulcer between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2018 were identified. Data were analysed with logistic regression to identify factors significantly associated with a diagnosis of cancer; a risk score was derived and externally validated. Results: 778 patients were identified and 60.3% (469/778) of patients had a follow-up OGD. 8.6% (66/778) of patients were diagnosed with cancer. No cases of cancer were found on follow-up OGD of a benign appearing ulcer with negative biopsies. Macroscopic suspicion of malignancy was present at index OGD in 100% (3/3) of those diagnosed with cancer on subsequent OGDs. Older age (p=0.014), increased ulcer size (p<0.001) and non-antral location (p=0.030) were significantly associated with malignancy. A risk score (area under the curve (AUC) 0.868, p<0.001, minimum score=0, maximum score=6) was derived from these variables. 78.0% of patients with malignant ulcers scored ≥3, only 15.8% with benign ulcers scored ≥3 (negative predictive value (NPV) 97.4%). External validation yielded an AUC of 0.862 (p<0.001) and NPV of 98.6%; 84.0% of those with malignant ulcers scored ≥3. Conclusion: Ulcers with a combination of macroscopically benign appearances, at least six negative biopsies and a low risk score do not necessarily need endoscopic follow-up.

Thrombin Is an Effective and Safe Therapy in the Management of Bleeding Gastric Varices. A Real-World Experience.

Variceal haemorrhage is a severe complication of liver disease with high mortality. Human recombinant thrombin has gained popularity in the management of variceal haemorrhage. We report on the use of thrombin for gastric and ectopic varices at a regional tertiary care centre. This was a retrospective observational study. Patients with portal hypertension who received endoscopic injection of recombinant thrombin were identified and data collected on haemostasis and rebleeding rates, complications and mortality. Patients were grouped by indication for thrombin injection: gastric/oesophageal/ectopic varices and endoscopic band ligation (EBL)-induced ulceration. 155 patients (96M/59F, mean age 58.3 years) received endoscopic thrombin injection. Mean volume of thrombin injected at index endoscopy was 9.5 ml/2375IU. Initial haemostasis was achieved in 144 patients (92.9%). Rebleeding occurred in a total of 53 patients (36.8%) divided as follows: early rebleeding (<5 days from index endoscopy)-26 patients (18%); rebleeding within 30 days-42 patients (29.1%); delayed rebleeding (> 30 days)-11 patients (7.6%). There was statistically significant difference in rate of initial haemostasis between Child-Pugh A/B patients vs Child-Pugh C (p = 0.046). There was no significant difference in rebleeding rates between different indication groups (p = 0.78), by presence of cirrhosis or by Child-Pugh Score. All-cause mortality at 6 weeks was 18.7%; 1-year mortality 37.4% (median follow-up 48 months). There was no significant difference in mortality between groups (p = 0.37). No significant adverse events or complications were reported. Thrombin is effective and safe for gastric varices and other portal-hypertension-related bleeding including oesophageal varices, ulcers secondary to EBL and ectopic varices.