Management of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients Reply
Open Access
- 1 May 2001
- Vol. 48 (5) , 738a-740
- https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.48.5.738a
Abstract
Editor,—We have serious concerns about several of the recent UK guidelines for the management of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients ( Gut 2000; 46 (suppl 3 and 4):iiiI–iii115), particularly those that contradict current published evidence. We highlight below the ones we feel are the most important. In the management of acute variceal bleeding, variceal ligation is not the method of first choice which was given an AI recommendation. Meta-analysis of all trials of acute bleeding of banding versus injection sclerotherapy have shown no statistically significant difference between the two treatments for either control of bleeding or survival (data derived from 12 studies with 419 patients), with no statistical heterogeneity.1 The implication of recommending ligation for acute bleeding is that double intubation would be necessary in a patient who is actively bleeding so as to attach the ligation device after the initial diagnostic endoscopy. Although there is no evidence, this would create more risk to the patient; it is common sense that a single intubation would be preferable and would take less time. At best the recommendation should be that either endoscopic technique could be used as first choice, dependent on operator expertise and facilities. Secondly, there is evidence from randomised studies of vasoactive drug therapy combined with endoscopic techniques that combination therapy is superior in terms of control of bleeding. This is based on five randomised studies with 610 patients (pooled odds ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.29–0.6).1 Publication bias assessment has shown that 29 null or negative studies would be needed to render the results non-significant, and thus this effect is fairly robust. Moreover, in several of these studies vasoactive drugs were given before diagnostic endoscopy, demonstrating their utility during the period of resuscitation before endoscopy could be safely performed, which in practice may be several … Dr R Jalan, Institute of Hepatology, University College London Medical School, 69–75 Chenies Mews, London WC1E 6HX, UK. r.jalan{at}ucl.ac.uk Dr R Jalan, Institute of Hepatology, University College London Medical School, 69–75 Chenies Mews, London WC1E 6HX, UK. r.jalan{at}ucl.ac.ukKeywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) versus endoscopic variceal ligation in the prevention of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis: a randomised trialGut, 2001
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) versus endoscopic therapy for the prevention of recurrent esophageal variceal bleedingHepatology, 2000
- Cost Analysis for the Prevention of Variceal Rebleeding: A Comparison Between Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt and Endoscopic Sclerotherapy in A Selected Group of Italian Cirrhotic PatientsHepatology, 1999
- A randomized trial comparing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt with variceal band ligation in the prevention of rebleeding from esophageal varicesHepatology, 1997
- Discrepancies between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1997
- Meta-analysis: An introduction and point of viewHepatology, 1996
- The treatment of portal hypertension: A meta-analytic review*1Hepatology, 1995
- Randomised trial of variceal banding ligation versus injection sclerotherapy for bleeding oesophageal varicesThe Lancet, 1993
- Endoscopic Ligation Compared with Sclerotherapy for the Treatment of Bleeding Esophageal VaricesAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1993
- Endoscopic Sclerotherapy as Compared with Endoscopic Ligation for Bleeding Esophageal VaricesNew England Journal of Medicine, 1992