View clinical trials related to Variceal Hemorrhage.
Filter by:To assess the prognostic performance of the ALBI associated scores (ALBI, PALBI and INR-ALBI score) and new MELD .3 in predicting the short-term outcomes (early re-bleeding and early mortality) of patients with cirrhosis presenting with acute variceal bleeding, comparable to the CTP and MELD and MELD Na scores.
Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleed of variceal origin is a common medical emergency. Prompt endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is therapeutic as well as diagnostic. Terlipressin, a vasopressin analog (intravenous, 2 mg q 4 hourly), is widely used promptly in any suspicious cases of variceal haemorrhage (VH) before endoscopic intervention, along with volume and blood resuscitative measures. As per guideline, after EVL Terlipressin therapy (1 mg IV q 4 hourly) is advised to continue for 2-5 day to prevent re-bleed and mortality [1]. But the prolong use of Terlipressin is not completely safe as well as it is expensive also in resource constraint setting. At present, no randomized control clinical trial (RCT) is available to prove the efficacy of post-EVL Terlipressin therapy in preventing re-bleed and mortality in acute variceal haemorrhage. During the post marketing surveillance Terlipressin therapy was found to be associated with life threatening complication like cardiac arrhythmia, myocardial ischemia, critical vasoconstriction of peripheral as well as internal organ leading to ischemia or gangrene, severe hyponatremia, hypertension, fluid overload and pulmonary oedema (2-4). So the justification of continuing Terlipressin for 5 days after EVL is questionable, as the haemostasis is primarily achieved by EVL and the risk versus benefit of Trelipressin therapy after EVL is still unknown. Continue IV Terlipressin therapy also prolongs in-hospital care causing further increase of health care burden. As per recently concluded institutional study, continuing Terlipressin after EVL in acute VH did not prevent re-bleed or mortality, rather it increased the risk of ADR, duration of hospital stay, in-hospital complications and cost of the therapy [5]. But the study was open level with relatively smaller sample size. There is still lack of RCT on post-EVL Terlipressin therapy, regarding its efficacy in preventing re-bleed and mortality. So, we have planned this study to evaluate the efficacy of continuous Terlipressin therapy after EVL, in acute VH. It will be a double blind randomized controlled clinical trial. The study will be carried out in the 2 arms; denoting the duration of Terlipressin therapy after EVL. Participant with acute VH will be randomized into two study groups after successful EVL. The treatment group will receive injection Terlipressin (1 mg IV bolus q 4 hourly) for 2 days and the control group will receive 10 ml of 0.9% normal saline (NS) IV bolus q 4 hourly instead of Terlipressin for 2 days. Both the group will receive standard care of therapy and will be followed up for 8 weeks. The participants and the recruiter/PI will be unaware of intervention (terlipressin or NS) receiving. The study will enlighten us regarding efficacy of continuous Terlipressin therapy after EVL to prevent re- bleed and mortality in acute VH. The study will also generate significant data regarding adverse drug events (ADE) and cost effectiveness or pharmaco- economics of continue Terlipressin therapy after EVL. In the Indian population there is no study to determine the role gene related to variceal bleed or re-bleed. Endothelial dysfunction is the major contributor for the development of portal hypertension and subsequent varices formation in patient with cirrhosis. Development of blood vessel and endothelial function, endothelial proliferation and neoangiogenesis are regulated by vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) family genes. In a recently published study, VEGF C(+405)G(rs2010963) single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotype was found to be associated with higher risk of esophageal and gastric varices and bleeding [10]. Since VEGF is the major factor to endothelial proliferation and neoangiogenesis. So, in this study, as a secondary objective, we will also try to explore the association of VEGF genotype with variceal bleed/ re-bleed and mortality.
Research has proven that large varices can be treated with beta-blockers (a type of anti-hypertensive medication) to reduce the pressure in the veins. The management of small varices is still uncertain. This study aims to discover if beta blockers can be used in this setting. We hypothesize that beta blockers will reduce the risk of bleeding from small varices from 20% to 10% over a period of 3 years, resulting in significant cost savings to the NHS from better patient outcomes.
Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is used to control and prevent variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis, but it can be complicated by bleeding from post-EVL ulcers. the current study aims at evaluating the potential benefit of different acid-suppressive therapies in prevention of post band ligation ulcer/bleeding. We will include 234 patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension undergoing endoscopic band ligation. Patients will be randomly allocated into one group of acid suppressive therapy (Vonoprazan or pantoprazole) versus placebo for 14 days. Re-endoscopy will be done after 2 weeks of treatment to assess the healing of post ligation ulcers. Any form of upper gastrointestinal bleeding will be documented.
In this project, we plan to evaluate whether a new, rotational thromboelastometry-guided algorithm (ROTEM) to guide hemostatic resuscitation decreases the use of allogeneic blood products, the total amount of bleeding, transfusion related side effects, thromboembolic complications and costs. Its effect on each patient's post-operative hemostatic profile is also measured. We plan to enroll 140 patients having ACLF with variceal bleeding randomized into two groups: one will be treated conventionally using clinical judgement and standard coagulation tests such as prothrombin time, platelet count, etc. the other treated using a ROTEM-based algorithm. They will be followed for development of rebleeding, complications of transfusion and any signs of infection after hospitalization
Through the parameters of liver stiffness and spleen stiffness obtained by combi-elastography technique, summarize and analyze the warning index of esophagogastric variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, so as to provide a new and valuable technique for clinical diagnosis.
Variceal hemorrhage is the serious complication in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD). To evaluate the bleeding risk of varices, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) should be performed. However, EGD is limited by its invasiveness and uncomfortableness. The Baveno VI criteria recommended that EGD could be spared in patients with liver stiffness (LS) based on transient elastography (TE) < 20 kPa and platelet count >150000/mm3. However, only 30% of patients can spare EGD. In order to expand the screening criteria, Expanded-Baveno VI proposed that by using LS (TE)<25 kPa and platelet count >110000/mm3, 40% of patients can safely avoid EGD. It is worth noting that the Baveno VI criteria is based on the European and American compensatory cirrhosis cohort (55% for hepatitis C, 14% for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, 13% for alcoholic hepatitis, 8% for hepatitis B), Expanded-Baveno VI is also of good diagnostic value for hepatitis C, alcoholic, and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis of cACLD. About 257 million people worldwide are infected with hepatitis B virus, and about 80 million people in China alone are infected with hepatitis B virus. Infected with hepatitis B virus is the main etiology of patients with cACLD in china. Hence, Baveno VI and Expanded-Baveno VI may not be suitable for patients with hepatitis B virus-dominant cACLD. Previous studies have shown that LS has a significant correlation with the severity of portal hypertension. Nevertheless, LS only has a good correlation with portal pressure in the early stage of portal hypertension (hepatic vein pressure gradient ≤10mm Hg), because liver fibrosis is the main cause of portal hypertension in this period. In the late stage of liver cirrhosis, the involvement of hyperdynamic circulation and increased portal blood flow, spleen stiffness (SS) may have a better correlation with HVPG than that of LS. Therefore, SS provides a reliable basis for the hemodynamic changes that occur during the development of liver cirrhosis and avoids the limitations caused by the measurement of LS. Previous study has found that changes in SS before and after non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) as primary prophylaxis may be a promising non-invasive tool for predicting hemodynamic response in patients with high-risk varices. Since SS is much higher than LS, the maximum threshold of 75 kPa measured with TE may not be sufficient to evaluate the hardness of the spleen. Meanwhile, numerous studies have found that the success rate of measuring SS and LS based on 2D-SWE is higher than that of TE. Hence, CHESS2004 study aims to establish a standard for predicting high-risk varices that is more suitable in patients with hepatitis B virus-dominant cACLD. In addition, non-invasive means of SS is used to evaluate the hemodynamic response of patients with high-risk varices receiving prophylaxis NSBBs therapy.
Variceal bleeding is a major complication of cirrhosis, associated with a hospital mortality rate of 10%-20%. Surviving patients are at high risk for recurrent hemorrhage. For these reasons, management should be directed at its prevention. Endoscopic variceal band ligation (EBL) in combination with non-selective β-blocker (NSBB) therapy is the recommended first line therapy. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt (TIPS) is the most effective method to prevent rebleeding, however, it is burdened with increased hepatic encephalopathy and deterioration of liver function in patients with advanced cirrhosis. So TIPS placement forms an alternative if first line therapy fails. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is currently the best available method to evaluate the presence and severity of portal hypertension. Patients who experience a reduction in HVPG of ≥20% or to <12mmHg in response to drug therapy are defined as 'responders'. The lowest rebleeding rates are observed in patients on secondary prophylaxis who are HVPG responders. A recent meta-analysis has demonstrated that combination therapy is only marginally more effective than drug therapy. This suggests that pharmacological therapy is the cornerstone of combination therapy. Adding EBL may not be the optimal approach to improve the outcome of HVPG nonresponders and HVPG non-responders are a special high-risk population that may benefit from a more aggressive approach, such as an early decision for TIPS. It recently was shown that TIPS placement within 72 hours after acute bleeding not only prevented recurrent bleeding but also improved survival. These raise the question of whether ligation together with NSBB should remain the first choice for elective secondary prophylaxis. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to compare whether HVPG-guided therapy is superior to standard combination therapy for the prevention of variceal bleeding in patients with decompensated cirrhosis.
Variceal bleeding (VB) is a life-threatening complication of cirrhosis with a 6-week mortality of approximately 15%-20%. The 1-year rate of recurrent VB is approximately 60% in patients without prophylaxis treatment. Therefore, all patients who survive VB must receive active treatments to prevent rebleeding. Usually, these patients are submitted to rebleeding prophylaxis with endoscopic band ligation (EBL) combined with non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB). Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) are reserved for those who failed endoscopic plus medical treatment. A recent meta-analysis comparing combination therapy to monotherapy with EBL or drug therapy has demonstrated that combination therapy is only marginally more effective than NSBB alone. This suggests that NSBB is the cornerstone of combination therapy. The lowest rebleeding rates are observed in patients on secondary prophylaxis who are hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) responders (defined as a reduction in HVPG below 12 mm Hg or > 20% from baseline). A recent study demonstrated that patients who have their first episode of variceal bleeding while on primary prophylaxis with NSBB have an increased risk of further bleeding and death, despite adding EBL. These patients possibly require alternative treatment approaches, such as TIPS. The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of TIPS vs. EBL + NSBB for the prevention of rebleeding in NSBB non-responder for primary prophylaxis.
This study attempts to clarify the pathophysiology of haemostasis in relation to the evidence of sepsis in liver disease, and compares the accuracy of various available laboratory tests in assessment of these patients. Further research is needed for proper understanding of the influence of sepsis on coagulation disorders in acute variceal bleeding in cirrhosis, to correctly identify the type and optimal quantity of blood product requirement in at risk patients. Thromboelastography (TEG) /Sonoclot has been proposed as a superior tool to rapidly diagnose and help guide resuscitation with blood products. Secondly, the study of derangement in coagulopathy after the onset of sepsis is of paramount importance because of increased mortality after the onset of sepsis. In the present study, patients with cirrhosis who present with acute variceal bleeding, will be included in the study cohort, and will undergo a baseline diagnostic workup as described. They will be followed for development of any signs of infection after hospitalization. Then the effect of sepsis on their coagulation and thrombin generation response swill be assessed. Thus the effect of sepsis on the progression and outcome of coagulopathy in patients with acute variceal bleeding will be studied.