Hepatic venous pressure gradient is a useful predictor in guiding treatment on prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhosis

Gai-Qin Li; Bo Yang; Jun Liu; Guang-Chuan Wang; Hai-Peng Yuan; Jing-Run Zhao; Ji-Yong Liu; Xiao-Pei Li; Chun-Qing Zhang

Hepatic venous pressure gradient is a useful predictor in guiding treatment on prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhosis

Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Oct 15;8(10):19709-16. eCollection 2015.

Authors

Gai-Qin Li¹, Bo Yang², Jun Liu³, Guang-Chuan Wang⁴, Hai-Peng Yuan¹, Jing-Run Zhao⁵, Ji-Yong Liu⁴, Xiao-Pei Li¹, Chun-Qing Zhang⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Gastroenterology, Tai'an Central Hospital People's Republic of China.
² Department of Axial and Joints, Tai'an Central Hospital People's Republic of China.
³ Department of Ultrasonic Imaging, Tai'an Central Hospital People's Republic of China.
⁴ Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affilliated to Shandong Univercity Jinan, People's Republic of China.
⁵ Department of Gastroenterology, Liaocheng People's Hospital People's Republic of China.

PMID: 26770635
PMCID: PMC4694535

Abstract

Background: The best therapy to prevent esophageal variceal (EV) rebleeding in cirrhotic patients who are non-responsive to pharmacological therapy have not been determined.

Aims: To evaluate efficacy of a strategy to assign different treatments according to hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG) values to prevent EV rebleeding in non-responders.

Methods: This study is a non-randomized controlled prospective study. 109 cirrhotic patients with EV bleeding who were non-responders based on two HVPG measurements were enrolled and divided two groups: 55 patients (EVL+β-blocker group) were treated with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and nonselective β-blocker; 54 patients (HVPG-guided group) were treated with EVL and nonselective β-blocker if HVPG ≤ 16 mmHg (low-HVPG), with percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization (PTVE) if HVPG > 16 mmHg and ≤ 20 mmHg (medium-HVPG), or with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) if HVPG > 20 mmHg (high-HVPG). Patients were followed up for rebleeding and mortality.

Results: The mean follow-up period was 17.0 months; rebleeding was higher in the EVL+β-blocker group than HVPG-guided group (25.5%, 9.3%, P = 0.026); 3-year probability of rebleeding in the EVL+Beta-blocker group increased with elevated levels of HVPG (12.5% vs 46.4% vs 64.9%, χ(2) = 11.551, P = 0.003), and 3-year probability of survival was no difference (96.6% vs 85.7% vs 90.9%, χ(2) = 2.638, P = 0.267). Rebleeding rate in PTVE group (7.7%) was lower than that in EVL+β-blockergroup with medium-HVPG (35.7%), but there was no difference. Rebleeding rate in TIPS group (7.7%) was lower than that in EVL+β-blockergroup with high-HVPG (45.5%), but there was no difference.

Conclusions: HVPG measurement was useful for making decisions to select EVL and Beta-blocker, PTVE or TIPS in secondary prophylaxis. HVPG-guided treatment is feasible and effective in preventing esophageal varices rebleeding.

Keywords: Esophageal varices bleeding; endoscopic variceal ligation; hepatic vein pressure gradient; percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization; transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.