Protocol implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences from a randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many intensive care units (ICUs) halted research to focus on COVID-19-specific studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the conduct of an international randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis (Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU [REVISE]) during the pandemic, addressing enrolment patterns, center engagement, informed consent processes, data collection, a COVID-specific substudy, patient transfers, and data monitoring. METHODS: REVISE is a randomized trial among mechanically ventilated patients, comparing pantoprazole 40 mg IV to placebo on the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the primary safety outcome of 90-day mortality. We documented protocol implementation status from March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022. RESULTS: The Steering Committee did not change the scientific protocol. From the first enrolment on July 9th 2019 to March 10th 2020 (8 months preceding the pandemic), 267 patients were enrolled in 18 centers. From March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022 (30 months thereafter), 41 new centers joined; 59 were participating by August 30th 2022 which enrolled 2961 patients. During a total of 1235 enrolment-months in the pandemic phase, enrolment paused for 106 (8.6%) months in aggregate (median 3 months, interquartile range 2;6). Protocol implementation involved a shift from the a priori consent model pre-pandemic (188, 58.8%) to the consent to continue model (1615, 54.1%, p < 0.01). In one new center, an opt-out model was approved. The informed consent rate increased slightly (80.7% to 85.0%, p = 0.05). Telephone consent encounters increased (16.6% to 68.2%, p < 0.001). Surge capacity necessitated intra-institutional transfers; receiving centers continued protocol implementation whenever possible. We developed a nested COVID-19 substudy. The Methods Centers continued central statistical monitoring of trial metrics. Site monitoring was initially remote, then in-person when restrictions lifted. CONCLUSION: Protocol implementation adaptations during the pandemic included a shift in the consent model, a sustained high consent rate, and launch of a COVID-19 substudy. Recruitment increased as new centers joined, patient transfers were optimized, and monitoring methods were adapted.

Beta-blockers or Placebo for Primary Prophylaxis (BOPPP) of oesophageal varices: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Liver disease is within the top five causes of premature death in adults. Deaths caused by complications of cirrhosis continue to rise, whilst deaths related to other non-liver disease areas are declining. Portal hypertension is the primary sequelae of cirrhosis and is associated with the development of variceal haemorrhage, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and infection, collectively termed hepatic decompensation, which leads to hospitalisation and mortality. It remains uncertain whether administering a non-selective beta-blocker (NSBB), specifically carvedilol, at an earlier stage, i.e. when oesophageal varices are small, can prevent VH and reduce all-cause decompensation (ACD). METHODS/DESIGN: The BOPPP trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, placebo-controlled, triple-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients aged 18 years or older with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices that have never bled will be recruited, subject to exclusion criteria. The trial aims to enrol 740 patients across 55 hospitals in the UK. Patients are allocated randomly on a 1:1 ratio to receive either carvedilol 6.25 mg (a NSBB) or a matched placebo, once or twice daily, for 36 months, to attain adequate power to determine the effectiveness of carvedilol in preventing or reducing ACD. The primary outcome is the time to first decompensating event. It is a composite primary outcome made up of variceal haemorrhage (VH, new or worsening ascites, new or worsening hepatic encephalopathy (HE), spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), hepatorenal syndrome, an increase in Child-Pugh grade by 1 grade or MELD score by 5 points, and liver-related mortality. Secondary outcomes include progression to medium or large oesophageal varices, development of gastric, duodenal, or ectopic varices, participant quality of life, healthcare costs and transplant-free survival. DISCUSSION: The BOPPP trial aims to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of carvedilol in patients with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices to determine whether this non-selective beta-blocker can prevent or reduce hepatic decompensation. There is clinical equipoise on whether intervening in cirrhosis, at an earlier stage of portal hypertension, with NSBB therapy is beneficial. Should the trial yield a positive result, we anticipate that the administration and use of carvedilol will become widespread with pathways developed to standardise the administration of the medication in primary care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (REC) (reference number: 19/YH/0015). The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Participants will be informed of the results via the BOPPP website ( www.boppp-trial.org ) and partners in the British Liver Trust (BLT) organisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EUDRACT reference number: 2018-002509-78. ISRCTN reference number: ISRCTN10324656. Registered on April 24 2019.

Management of Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Agents in Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Prevention of Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Managing gastrointestinal bleeding in patients using antithrombotic agents remains challenging in clinical practice. This review article provides a comprehensive and evidence-based approach to managing acute antithrombotic-related gastrointestinal bleeding, focusing on the triage of patients, appropriate resuscitation, and timely endoscopy. The latest clinical practice guidelines are highlighted to guide decisions concerning the use of reversal agents, temporary interruption, and resumption of antithrombotic drugs. Additionally, preventive measures are discussed to lower the risk of future bleeding and minimize complications among patients prescribed antithrombotic drugs.

The Role of Endoscopy for Primary and Secondary Prophylaxis of Variceal Bleeding.

Cirrhosis is associated with a high morbidity and mortality. One of the most serious and unpredictable complication of cirrhosis, with a high mortality rate, is bleeding from esophagogastric varices. Endoscopic screening of varices followed by primary prophylactic treatment with beta blockers or band ligation in the presence of large esophageal varices will reduce the variceal bleeding rates and thereby reduce mortality risks in those with advanced cirrhosis. There is a paucity of data on primary prophylaxis of gastric varices but secondary prophylaxis includes glue injection, balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration, or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting with coil embolization.

Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis for acute esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with band ligation: A large observational study.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal variceal bleeding is a severe complication associated with liver cirrhosis and typically necessitates endoscopic hemostasis. The current standard treatment is endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), and Western guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis following hemostasis. However, given the improvements in prognosis for variceal bleeding due to advancements in the management of bleeding and treatments of liver cirrhosis and the global concerns regarding the emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria, there is a need to reassess the use of routine antibiotic prophylaxis after hemostasis. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients treated for EVL. METHODS: We conducted a 13-year observational study using the Tokushukai medical database across 46 hospitals. Patients were divided into the prophylaxis group (received antibiotics on admission or the next day) and the non-prophylaxis group (did not receive antibiotics within one day of admission). The primary outcome was composed of 6-wk mortality, 4-wk rebleeding, and 4-wk spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP). The secondary outcomes were each individual result and in-hospital mortality. A logistic regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting was used. A subgroup analysis was conducted based on the Child-Pugh classification to determine its influence on the primary outcome measures, while sensitivity analyses for antibiotic type and duration were also performed. RESULTS: Among 980 patients, 790 were included (prophylaxis: 232, non-prophylaxis: 558). Most patients were males under the age of 65 years with a median Child-Pugh score of 8. The composite primary outcomes occurred in 11.2% of patients in the prophylaxis group and 9.5% in the non-prophylaxis group. No significant differences in outcomes were observed between the groups (adjusted odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.99; P = 0.74). Individual outcomes such as 6-wk mortality, 4-wk rebleeding, 4-wk onset of SBP, and in-hospital mortality were not significantly different between the groups. The primary outcome did not differ between the Child-Pugh subgroups. Similar results were observed in the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: No significant benefit to antibiotic prophylaxis for esophageal variceal bleeding treated with EVL was detected in this study. Global reassessment of routine antibiotic prophylaxis is imperative.

Continuing Medical Education Questions: February 2024.

Article Title: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Propranolol Use During Ligation Program for Secondary Prophylaxis of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding.

Pantoprazole and Vonoprazan Performed Well in Preventing Peptic Ulcer Recurrence in Low-Dose Aspirin Users.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose aspirin (LDA) administration is associated with an elevated risk of recurring peptic ulcer (PU) and gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage. AIMS: This systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of diverse medications in preventing the recurrence of PU and GI hemorrhage in patients with a history of PU receiving long-term LDA therapy. METHODS: This systematic review and network meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023406550). We searched relevant studies in main databases from inception to March 2023. All statistical analyses were performed using R (version 4.1.3), with the "Gemtc" (version 1.0-1) package. The pooled risk ratio (RR), corresponding 95% credible interval (95% CrI), and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were calculated. RESULTS: 11 Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. The analysis underscored pantoprazole was the most efficacious for reducing the risk of PU recurrence (RR [95% CrI] = 0.02 [0, 0.28]; SUCRA: 90.76%), followed by vonoprazan (RR [95% CrI] = 0.03 [0, 0.19]; SUCRA: 86.47%), comparing with the placebo group. Pantoprazole also performed well in preventing GI hemorrhage (RR [95% CrI] = 0.01[0, 0.42]; SUCRA: 87.12%) compared with Teprenone. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with a history of PU receiving LDA, pantoprazole and vonoprazan might be the optimal choices to prevent PU recurrence and GI hemorrhage.

Reduction of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Risk With Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy in Asian Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Receiving Direct Oral Anticoagulant: A Nationwide Population-based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) receiving direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a serious complication. There are limited data on the benefit of preventive proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use to reduce the risk of UGIB in DOAC users. METHODS: We included patients with AF receiving DOAC from 2015 to 2020 based on the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment database. The propensity score (PS) weighting method was used to compare patients with PPI use and those without PPI use. The primary outcome was hospitalization for UGIB. Weighted hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: A total of 165,624 patients were included (mean age: 72.2 ± 10.8 years; mean CHA2DS2-VASc score: 4.3 ± 1.8; mean HAS-BLED score: 3.3 ± 1.2). Among them, 99,868 and 65,756 were in the non-PPI group and PPI group, respectively. During a median follow-up of 1.5 years, the PPI group was associated with lower risks of hospitalization for UGIB and UGIB requiring red blood cell transfusion than non-PPI group (weighted HR, 0.825; 95% CI, 0.761-0.894 and 0.798; 95% CI, 0.717-0.887, respectively, both P < .001). The benefits of PPI on the risk of hospitalization for UGIB were greater in those with older age (≥75 years), higher HAS-BLED score (≥3), prior GIB history, and concomitant use of antiplatelet agent (all P-for-interaction < .1). Low-dose PPI was consistently associated with a lower risk of significant UGIB by 43.6-49.3% (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large Asian cohort of patients with AF on DOAC, PPI co-therapy is beneficial for reducing the risk of hospitalization for UGIB, particularly in high-risk patients.

Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis Versus Placebo-A Blinded Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety of Two Strategies in Critically Ill Infants With Congenital Heart Disease.

OBJECTIVES: The routine use of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in infants with congenital heart disease (CHD) in the cardiac ICU (CICU) is controversial. We aimed to conduct a pilot study to explore the feasibility of performing a subsequent larger trial to assess the safety and efficacy of withholding SUP in this population (NCT03667703). DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS: Single-center, prospective, double-blinded, parallel group (SUP vs. placebo), pilot randomized controlled pilot trial (RCT) in infants with CHD admitted to the CICU and anticipated to require respiratory support for greater than 24 hours. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 (stratified by age and admission type) to receive a histamine-2 receptor antagonist or placebo until respiratory support was discontinued, up to 14 days, or transfer from the CICU, if earlier. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Feasibility was defined a priori by thresholds of screening rate, consent rate, timely drug allocation, and protocol adherence. The safety outcome was the rate of clinically significant upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding. We screened 1,426 patients from February 2019 to March 2022; of 132 eligible patients, we gained informed consent in 70 (53%). Two patients did not require CICU admission after obtaining consent, and the remaining 68 patients were randomized to SUP (n = 34) or placebo (n = 34). Ten patients were withdrawn early, because of a change in eligibility (n = 3) or open-label SUP use (n = 7, 10%). Study procedures were completed in 58 patients (89% protocol adherence). All feasibility criteria were met. There were no clinically significant episodes of UGI bleeding during the pilot RCT. The percentage of patients with other nonserious adverse events did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Withholding of SUP in infants with CHD admitted to the CICU was feasible. A larger multicenter RCT designed to confirm the safety of this intervention and its impact on incidence of UGI bleeding, gastrointestinal microbiome, and other clinical outcomes is warranted.

Preventing variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Preventing rebleeding is crucial, but the best prevention technique for patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis (PVT) remains debatable. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis compared a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) with endoscopic therapy (ET) plus nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) for preventing variceal rebleeding in this patient population. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from their inception until May 18, 2023. The studies were screened using predetermined criteria, relevant data were extracted, and pooled analyses were performed using the Reviewer Manager 5.4.1 software. RESULTS: We retrieved 1032 studies, of which 5 studies comprising a total of 272 patients were included. The postoperative variceal rebleeding rate was significantly lower in the TIPS group than in the ET + NSBBs group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.11-0.35, P < 0.05, I2 = 0%), but the portal vein recanalization rate was higher (OR = 7.92, 95% CI = 3.04-20.67, P < 0.05, I2 = 0%). The rates of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and mortality did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that TIPS prevents variceal rebleeding without increasing the hepatic encephalopathy risk more effectively than ET plus NSBBs, but this benefit did not translate into improved survival. Thus, it may be preferable to ET plus NSBBs for preventing variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis and PVT. However, more large-scale and multicenter randomized controlled trials involving other patient populations are required to verify the clinical efficacy of both these treatments and ensure generalizability.

Management of varices but not anticoagulation is associated with improved outcome in patients with HCC and macrovascular tumour invasion.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The value of bleeding prophylaxis and anticoagulation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and macrovascular tumour invasion (MVI) is unclear. We evaluated the impact of anticoagulation on thrombosis progression, bleeding events, and overall mortality, and assessed the efficacy of adequate management of varices as recommended for patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: HCC patients with MVI who had Child-Turcotte-Pugh A-B7 were included between Q4/2002 and Q2/2022. Localization of the tumour thrombus and changes at 3-6 months were evaluated by two radiologists. Univariable and multivariable logistic/Cox regression analyses included time-dependent variables (i.e., anticoagulation, systemic therapy, non-selective beta blocker treatment). RESULTS: Of 124 patients included (male: n = 110, 89%), MVI involved the main portal vein in 47 patients (38%), and 49 individuals (40%) had additional non-tumorous thrombus apposition. Fifty of 80 patients (63%) with available endoscopy had varices. Twenty-four individuals (19%) received therapeutic anticoagulation and 94 patients (76%) were treated with effective systemic therapies. The use of therapeutic anticoagulation did not significantly affect the course of the malignant thrombosis at 3-6 months. Systemic therapy (aHR: 0.26 [95%CI: 0.16-0.40]) but not anticoagulation was independently associated with reduced all-cause mortality. In patients with known variceal status, adequate management of varices was independently associated with reduced risk of variceal bleeding (aHR: 0.12 [95%CI: 0.02-0.71]). In the whole cohort, non-selective beta blockers were independently associated with reduced risk of variceal bleeding or death from any cause (aHR: 0.69 [95%CI: 0.50-0.96]). CONCLUSION: Adequate bleeding prophylaxis and systemic anti-tumour therapy but not anticoagulation were associated with improved outcomes in patients with HCC and MVI.

EUS-Guided Combined Injection Therapy as a Secondary Prophylaxis of Gastric Variceal Bleeding in a Patient Contraindicated for TIPS: Case Report.

Background: Although bleeding from gastric varices is less observed than esophageal variceal bleeding (VB) (25% vs. 64%), it is associated with an exceedingly high mortality rate of up to 45%. Current guidelines suggest that endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection therapy (ECI) is the first-line treatment for gastric variceal bleeding (GVB). A major concern, however, is the possibility of embolic incidents, which are clinically evident in approximately 1% of cases. There are no guidelines for secondary prophylaxis of GVB. Radiological treatments using a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) or balloon occlusive transvenous obliteration (BRTO) are considered viable. However, they are not universally inapplicable; for instance, in the setting of pulmonary hypertension (TIPS). EUS-guided combined injection therapy (EUS-CIT) (embolization coils + cyanoacrylate) is an emerging procedure with a perceived reduced risk of systemic embolization. Case presentation: A patient with alcoholic liver cirrhosis was subjected to EUS-CIT as a secondary prophylaxis for GVB. He had three VB episodes of prior presentation treated by endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and ECI. Due to recurrent episodes of bleeding, he was referred to TIPS, but was considered contraindicated due to severe pulmonary hypertension. EUS-CIT was conducted with two embolization coils inserted into the varix, followed by an injection of 1.5 mL of cyanoacrylate glue. A 19 Ga needle, 0.035″ 14/70 mm coils, non-diluted n-butyl-caynoacrylate, and a transgastric approach were utilized. There were no immediate complications. Complete obliteration of the GV was observed in a follow-up endoscopy on day 30. Subsequent endoscopies in months three and six showed no progression of gastric varices. Conclusions: Our initial experience with EUS-CIT suggests that it can be successfully used as secondary prophylaxis for recurrent GVB.

Portal hypertension and variceal bleeding in patients with liver cancer: Evidence gaps for prevention and management.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Portal hypertension (PHT) and HCC are 2 major complications of cirrhosis that often coexist in the same patient and impact the prognosis, especially in patients with acute variceal bleeding. In this review, we aim to discuss the best strategy for PHT screening and primary prophylaxis, as well as the management of acute variceal bleeding, to improve the management of PHT in HCC patients. RESULTS: Recent therapeutic advances observed in the management of HCC, notably through the advent of immunotherapy, have led to a clear improvement in the survival of patients. The prevention of complications related to underlying cirrhosis, such as PHT and acute variceal bleeding, is now part of the management of HCC patients. The Baveno VII conference recently redefined screening and prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis. However, data regarding the applicability of these criteria in patients with HCC have been sparse. From our point of view, the Baveno criteria are not appropriate to exclude high-risk esophageal varices (EV) in HCC patients, and endoscopy should be performed except in HCC patients with a liver stiffness measurement (LSM) ≥25 kPa, who should benefit from nonselective beta-blockers (NSSBs) without performing endoscopy. We are also in favor of using NSBBs as primary prophylaxis in patients with EV regardless of the size and with gastric varices since these patients display clinically significant PHT. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate evaluation and treatment of PHT remain major issues in improving the outcomes of HCC patients. Many questions remain unanswered, opening the field to many areas of research.

Reduced risk of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with eupatilin in aspirin plus acid suppressant users: nationwide population-based study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Mucoprotective agents, such as eupatilin, are often prescribed to prevent gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in addition to an acid suppressant despite the absence of a large-scale study. We evaluated the additional effect of eupatilin on the prevention of GI bleeding in both the upper and lower GI tract in concomitant aspirin and acid suppressant users using the nationwide database of national claims data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service (NHIS). METHODS: An aspirin cohort was constructed using the NHIS claims data from 2013 to 2020. Patients who manifested with hematemesis, melena, or hematochezia were considered to have GI bleeding. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine the risk factors for GI bleeding associated with the concomitant use of GI drugs and other covariates among aspirin users. RESULTS: Overall, a total of 432,208 aspirin users were included. The concurrent use of an acid suppressant and eupatilin (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85, p = 0.016, vs. acid suppressant only) was a statistically significant preventive factor for GI bleeding. Moreover, a more than 3-month duration (HR = 0.88, p = 0.030) of acid suppressant and eupatilin prescription (vs. acid suppressant only) was a statistically significant preventive factor for GI bleeding. CONCLUSION: Eupatilin administration for ≥ 3 months showed additional preventive effect on GI bleeding in concomitant aspirin and acid suppressant users. Thus, cotreatment with eupatilin with a duration of 3 months or longer is recommended for reducing GI bleeding among aspirin plus acid suppressant users.

Pre-emptive TIPS in high-risk acute variceal bleeding. An updated and revised individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A previous individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) showed that compared with drugs+endoscopy, the placement of transjugular portosystemic shunt within 72 hours of admission (pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: p-TIPS) increases the survival of high-risk patients (Child-Pugh B+ active bleeding and Child-Pugh C<14 points) with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding. However, the previous IPD-MA was not a two-stage meta-analysis, did not consider the potential risk of selection bias of observational studies, and did not include the most recent randomized clinical trial. We performed an updated and revised IPD-MA to reassess the efficacy of p-TIPS, addressing all previous issues. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We included all studies from the previous IPD-MA and searched for other possible eligible publications until September 2022. We performed a two-stage IPD-MA of data from 8 studies (4 randomized clinical trials and 4 observational). In addition, we performed a sensitivity analysis excluding those patients dying up to the first 72 hours after admission in the Drugs+Endoscopy arms of the 4 observational studies. The primary end point was the effects of p-TIPS versus Drugs+Endoscopy on 1-year survival.We identified 1389 patients (342 p-TIPS and 1047 Drugs+Endoscopy). The two-stage IPD-MA showed that p-TIPS significantly reduced the mortality in the overall population (HR=0·43, 95% CI: 0.32-0.60, p <0.001. This effect was observed in both subgroups of patients with Child-Pugh. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the survival benefit of p-TIPS. CONCLUSIONS: The updated two-stage IPD-MA confirms the significant survival advantage of p-TIPS in high-risk patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding. As a result, we recommend p-TIPS as the preferred first-choice treatment for these patients.