No abstract

Summary Background Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is used for primary (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) of variceal bleeding. Current guidelines recommend combined use of non‐selective beta‐blockers (NSBBs) and EBL for SP, while in PP either NSBB or EBL should be used. Aim To assess (re‐)bleeding rates and mortality in cirrhotic patients receiving EBL for PP or SP for variceal bleeding. Methods (Re‐)bleeding rates and mortality were retrospectively assessed with and without concomitant NSBB therapy after first EBL in PP and SP. Results Seven hundred and sixty‐six patients with oesophageal varices underwent EBL from 01/2005 to 06/2015. Among the 284 patients undergoing EBL for PP, n = 101 (35.6%) received EBL only, while n = 180 (63.4%) received EBL + NSBBs. In 482 patients on SP, n = 163 (33.8%) received EBL only, while n = 299 (62%) received EBL + NSBBs. In PP, concomitant NSBB therapy neither decreased bleeding rates (log‐rank: P = 0.353) nor mortality (log‐rank: P = 0.497) as compared to EBL alone. In SP, similar re‐bleeding rates were documented in EBL + NSBB vs EBL alone (log‐rank: P = 0.247). However, EBL + NSBB resulted in a significantly lower mortality rate (log‐rank: P<0.001). A decreased risk of death with EBL + NSBB in SP (hazard ratio, HR: 0.50; P<0.001) but not of rebleeding, transplantation or further decompensation was confirmed by competing risk analysis. Overall NSBB intake reduced 6‐months mortality (HR: 0.53, P = 0.008) in SP, which was most pronounced in patients without severe/refractory ascites (HR: 0.37; P = 0.001) but not observed in patients with severe/refractory ascites (HR: 0.80; P = 0.567). Conclusions EBL alone seems sufficient for PP of variceal bleeding. In SP, the addition of NSBB to EBL was associated with an improved survival within the first 6 months after EBL.

Background Current guidelines favour the use of bleeding stents over balloon tamponade (BT) for refractory variceal bleeding (VB) from oesophageal varices. However, data on the efficacy and safety of self‐expandable metal SX‐ELLA Danis stents (SEMS) are limited. Methods Cirrhotic patients receiving SEMS for VB at four tertiary care centres were included in this retrospective multicentre study. Rates of failure‐to‐control bleeding (within 5 days) and bleeding‐related mortality (6 weeks) were assessed. Results SEMS controlled VB in 79.4% (27/34) of patients. In the rest of patients, other rescue treatments including endoscopic band ligation (EBL, n = 3), SEMS renewed (n = 2) or Linton (n = 2) were applied; however, VB was only controlled in one patient. Early rebleeding within six weeks occurred in 17.6% (6/34) patients. Median SEMS dwell time was three (IQR:6) days. Overall n = 13/34 (38.2%) patients died with SEMS in situ. After SEMS removal, rebleeding and bleeding‐related death occurred in n = 7 (35%) and n = 5 (14.7%) patients respectively. Only 32.4% (10/34) patients did not experience any rebleeding within six weeks after SEMS removal. Bleeding‐related mortality was 47.1% (n = 16/34) and the median survival after SEMS placement was 2.1 months. Notably, no patient received an early transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). The most common adverse events were stent dislocations (n = 13; 38.2%), while ulcers/necrosis of the oesophageal mucosa was seen in only four (11.8%) patients. Conclusion SEMS controlled refractory VB in most patients. However, bleeding‐related mortality remained high. While SEMS dislocations were frequent, ulcers/necrosis of the oesophagus was rare. Further studies should investigate whether the wider use of early TIPS reduces bleeding‐related mortality after SEMS placement.

The prevalence and embolic risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) increase with age. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) reduce the risk of stroke or embolism. The aim of this review was to summarize the paucity of information regarding the safety and efficacy of DOACs in AF patients aged 90 years or older. The maximum age of included patients is not listed in any of the available DOAC investigating trials and registries, thus it is unclear if nonagenarians were included. Additionally, we could not find any subgroup analysis addressing this issue. There is an urgent need to collect more information on the safety and efficacy of oral anticoagulants in nonagenarians, especially regarding the role of DOACs, which are increasingly prescribed to this group of patients despite the lack of data. The best solution to this problem would be a prospective, randomized trial in this group of patients, however that would require a large investment of time, effort, and funds. In the meantime, we suggest subgroup analyses addressing the effects and safety of VKAs versus DOACs in nonagenarians, in case they have been included in previously completed or ongoing trials or registries. This could be feasible and would be desirable in view of the large amount of data already accumulated. Irrespective of age, anemia in patients receiving DOACs should be carefully investigated to rule out occult blood loss. With their known interaction profile and the possibility of monitoring these drugs, VKAs should be favored over DOACs in nonagenarians until more data are available regarding the safety of DOACs.

No abstract