METHODS: We reviewed all children with gastroesophageal varices seen in our unit from 2000 to 2019. Primary prophylaxis was defined as endoscopic procedure without a preceding spontaneous bleeding and secondary prophylaxis as preceded by spontaneous bleeding. High-risk varices were defined as presence of grade III esophageal varices, cardia gastric varices or cherry red spots on the varices. Outcome measures (spontaneous rebleeding within 3 months after endoscopic procedure, number of additional procedures to eradicate varices, liver transplant [LT], death) were ascertained.
RESULTS: Sixteen of 62 (26%) patients (median [± S.D.] age at diagnosis = 5.0 ± 4.3 years) with varices had primary prophylaxis, 38 (61%) had secondary prophylaxis while 8 (13%) had no prophylaxis. No difference in the proportion of patients with high-risk varices was observed between primary (88%) and secondary (92%; P = 0.62) prophylaxis. As compared to secondary prophylaxis, children who had primary prophylaxis were significantly less likely to have spontaneous rebleeding (6% vs. 38%; P = 0.022) and needed significantly fewer repeated endoscopic procedures (0.9 ± 1.0 vs. 3.1 ± 2.5; P = 0.021). After 8.9 ± 5.5 years of follow-up, overall survival was 85%; survival with native liver was 73%. No statistical difference was observed in the eventual outcome (alive with native liver) between primary and secondary (71% vs. 78%, P = 0.78).
CONCLUSION: Children with PHT who had primary prophylaxis had less subsequent spontaneous rebleeding and needed fewer additional endoscopic procedures as compared to secondary prophylaxis but did not have an improved eventual outcome. Screening endoscopy in all children who have signs of PHT and primary prophylaxis in high-risk esophageal varices should be considered before eventual LT.
METHOD: This is a retrospective study of all the patients that had undergone endoscopic variceal surveillance at the Gastroenterology endoscopy unit, Serdang Hospital from 1st January 2015 to 31st March 2017. Patients' demography, aetiologies of liver cirrhosis, platelet level and international normalised ratio (INR) prior banding procedure, and the post EVL complications were recorded and further analysed with SPSS version 16.
RESULTS: In this study, 105 patients were screened for varices. Fifty-five of them had undergone EVL, with a quarter of the patients requiring repeated ligation. There was a male preponderance with 76.4%. 56.4% of patients were in age from 40-59 years. The majority of our patients were of the Malay ethnicity. The major aetiology for liver cirrhosis in our patients was viral hepatitis with Hepatitis C (31.0%), and Hepatitis B (20.0%). Most of our patients had platelet count >50,000 and INR <1.5 prior to EVL. There was no major complication in all of our subjects.
CONCLUSION: EVL is relatively safe and feasible treatment for prevention of oesophageal variceal bleeds with a low complication rate.
OBJECTIVES: To review and assess the efficacy of currently available treatment options for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in children and adults with cystic fibrosis.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 19 November 2019. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and online trials registries. Date of last search: 01 January 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Any published and unpublished randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials of advanced liver disease in cystic fibrosis with cirrhosis or liver failure, portal hypertension or variceal bleeding (or both).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Authors independently examined titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant trials, but none were eligible for inclusion in this review.
MAIN RESULTS: A comprehensive search of the literature did not identify any published eligible randomised controlled trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In order to develop the best source of evidence, there is a need to undertake randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in adults and children with cystic fibrosis.
METHODS: The rats were divided into seven groups according to their pretreatment: an untreated control group, an ulcer control group, a reference control group (20 mg/kg omeprazole), and four experimental groups (50, 100, 200, or 400 mg/kg of extract). Carboxymethyl cellulose was the vehicle for the agents. Prior to the induction of gastric ulcers with absolute ethanol, the rats in each group were pretreated orally. An hour later, the rats were sacrificed, and gastric tissues were collected to evaluate the ulcers and to measure enzymatic activity. The tissues were subjected to histological and immunohistochemical evaluations.
RESULTS: Compared with the extensive mucosal damage in the ulcer control group, gross evaluation revealed a marked protection of the gastric mucosa in the experimental groups, with significantly preserved gastric wall mucus. In these groups, superoxide dismutase and malondialdehyde levels were significantly increased (P < 0.05) and reduced (P < 0.05), respectively. In addition to the histologic analyses (HE and periodic acid-Schiff staining), immunohistochemistry confirmed the protection through the upregulation of Hsp70 and the downregulation of Bax proteins. The gastroprotection of the experimental groups was comparable to that of the reference control medicine omeprazole.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study reports the gastroprotective property of an ethanolic extract of C. olitorius against ethanol-induced gastric mucosal hemorrhagic lesions in rats.
METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease. Participants were randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole 40 mg daily or placebo, as well as rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg once daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin 100 mg alone. The primary outcome was time to first upper gastrointestinal event, defined as a composite of overt bleeding, upper gastrointestinal bleeding from a gastroduodenal lesion or of unknown origin, occult bleeding, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcer or ≥5 erosions, upper gastrointestinal obstruction, or perforation.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in upper gastrointestinal events between the pantoprazole group (102 of 8791 events) and the placebo group (116 of 8807 events) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.15). Pantoprazole significantly reduced bleeding of gastroduodenal lesions (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.94; P = .03); this reduction was greater when we used a post-hoc definition of bleeding gastroduodenal lesion (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.74), although the number needed to treat still was high (n = 982; 95% confidence interval, 609-2528).
CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, we found that routine use of proton pump inhibitors in patients receiving low-dose anticoagulation and/or aspirin for stable cardiovascular disease does not reduce upper gastrointestinal events, but may reduce bleeding from gastroduodenal lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01776424.
METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole (40 mg daily, n = 8791) or placebo (n = 8807). Participants were also randomly assigned to groups that received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) with aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg) alone. We collected data on development of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, other enteric infections, fractures, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality every 6 months. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.01 years, with 53,152 patient-years of follow-up.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the pantoprazole and placebo groups in safety events except for enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% in the placebo group; odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.75). For all other safety outcomes, proportions were similar between groups except for C difficile infection, which was approximately twice as common in the pantoprazole vs the placebo group, although there were only 13 events, so this difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01776424.