Objective Non-selective β-blockers or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) are recommended for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with oesophageal varices. Additional α-adrenergic blockade (as by carvedilol) may increase the number of patients with haemodynamic response (reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) of ≥20% or to values <12 mm Hg). Design Patients with oesophageal varices undergoing measurement of HVPG before and under propranolol treatment (80-160 mg/day) were included. HVPG responders were kept on propranolol (PROP group), while non-responders were placed on carvedilol (6.25-50 mg/day). Carvedilol responders continued treatment (CARV group), while non-responders to carvedilol underwent EBL. The primary aim was to assess haemodynamic response rates to carvedilol in propranolol non-responders. Results 36% (37/104) of patients showed a HVPG response to propranolol. Among the propranolol nonresponders 56% (38/67) eventually achieved a haemodynamic response with carvedilol, while 44% (29/67) patients were finally treated with EBL. The decrease in HVPG was significantly greater with carvedilol (median 12.5 mg/day) than with propranolol (median 100 mg/day): −19±10% versus −12±11% ( p<0.001). During a 2 year follow-up bleeding rates for PROP were 11% versus CARV 5% versus EBL 25% ( p=0.0429). Fewer episodes of hepatic decompensation (PROP 38%/CARV 26% vs EBL 55%; p=0.0789) and significantly lower mortality (PROP 14%/CARV 11% vs EBL 31%; p=0.0455) were observed in haemodynamic responders compared to the EBL group. Conclusions Carvedilol leads to a significantly greater decrease in HVPG than propranolol. Using carvedilol for primary prophylaxis a substantial proportion of nonresponders to propranolol can achieve a haemodynamic response, which is associated with improved outcome with regard to prevention of variceal bleeding, hepatic decompensation and death.

In November 2004, the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ÖGGH) held for the first time a consensus meeting on the definitions and treatment of portal hypertension and its complications in the Billroth-Haus in Vienna, Austria (Billroth I-Meeting). This meeting was preceded by a meeting of international experts on portal hypertension with some of the proponents of the Baveno consensus conferences (http://www.oeggh.at/videos.asp). The consensus itself is based on the Baveno III consensus with regard to portal hypertensive bleeding and the suggestions of the International Ascites Club regarding the treatment of ascites. Those statements were modified by new knowledge derived from the recent literature and also by the current practice of medicine as agreed upon by the participants of the consensus meeting. In October 2011, the ÖGGH organized the second consensus meeting on portal hypertension and its complications in Vienna (Billroth II-Meeting). The Billroth II-Guidelines on the definitions and treatment of portal hypertension and its complications take into account the developments of the last 7 years, including the Baveno-V update and several key publications.

We demonstrate that IBD patients under long-term 6-TG therapy are at a substantial risk for developing NRH. NRH results in elevation of HVPG and may cause CSPH. Discontinuation of 6-TG therapy extenuates portal hypertension and may thus reduce the risk of complications.

).q RSNA, 2015 Purpose:To investigate the efficacy and safety of conventional transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) (cTACE) in combination with bevacizumab or a placebo in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in a randomized controlled double-blind phase II trial. Materials and Methods:This study was approved by the institutional review board, and written informed consent was obtained prior to inclusion. A total of 40 patients (20 patients per group, all 18 years or older) with histologically confirmed early-or intermediate-stage HCC and Child-Pugh class A or B cirrhosis were scheduled for inclusion. The primary endpoint was radiologic progression at 12 months according to European Association for the Study of the Liver criteria. Secondary endpoints were safety and overall survival (OS). Patients underwent cTACE with doxorubicin and intravenous administration of a placebo (cTACE-C) or bevacizumab (cTACE-B) (5 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks for 52 weeks. After the first TACE procedure, TACE was repeated twice in 4-week intervals if indicated and technically feasible and on demand thereafter. Statistical analyses were performed with statistical software. P , .05 indicated a significant difference. Results:Thirty-two patients were recruited between January 2006 and December 2009 (29 male, three female; mean age, 61 years 6 8 [standard deviation]; Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A, n = 4; Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B, n = 28; predominant cause, alcohol [n = 15]; Child-Pugh class A disease, n = 22; Child-Pugh class B disease, n = 10; 16 patients received bevacizumab; 16 patients received a placebo). Patients underwent a median of three TACE cycles and received 13 infusions of bevacizumab versus 11 infusions of the placebo before the trial was stopped prematurely for safety reasons. Severe (grade 3-5) septic (n = 8 vs n = 3) and vascular (n = 9 vs n = 0) side effects were observed almost exclusively in the cTACE-B group. Median survival was worse in the cTACE-B group than in the cTACE-C group (5.3 vs 13.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8, 3.6; P = .195) and reached significance in patients with Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis (7.3 vs 26.5 months; HR, 2.6; 95% CI: 1.0, 6.6; P = .049). The primary endpoint was not met, since there was no difference in radiologic response between the groups at 3, 6, or 12 months. Conclusion:No improvement in radiologic tumor response or OS was observed in patients with HCC who received cTACE and bevacizumab, but severe and even lethal septic and vascular side effects occurred. Thus, bevacizumab cannot be recommended as an adjuvant treatment to cTACE.q RSNA, 2015

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most frequently applied standard treatments for this disease. The role for TACE is fairly well defined within the most widely used treatment algorithm for HCC, die Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system and treatment algorithm. But no general treatment algorithm will go into the technical details of any procedure and several patients will not fit ideally into the patient groups predefined in BCLC or any other treatment algorithm. Furthermore, indications and contraindications sometimes are viewed differently by the various medical specialties involved in taking care of such patients. We present here the joint expert position statement of the Austrian Societies of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ÖGGH), Interventional Radiology (ÖGIR), Hematology and Oncology (ÖGHO), and Surgical Oncology (ASSO) on the technical aspects, indications, and contraindication for the use of TACE in the management of HCC.