These updated guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage have been commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee (CSSC) of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the liver section of the BSG. The original guidelines which this document supersedes were written in 2000 and have undergone extensive revision by 13 members of the Guidelines Development Group (GDG). The GDG comprises elected members of the BSG liver section, representation from British Association for the Study of the Liver (BASL) and Liver QuEST, a nursing representative and a patient representative. The quality of evidence and grading of recommendations was appraised using the AGREE II tool.The nature of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients with its complex range of complications makes rigid guidelines inappropriate. These guidelines deal specifically with the management of varices in patients with cirrhosis under the following subheadings: (1) primary prophylaxis; (2) acute variceal haemorrhage; (3) secondary prophylaxis of variceal haemorrhage; and (4) gastric varices. They are not designed to deal with (1) the management of the underlying liver disease; (2) the management of variceal haemorrhage in children; or (3) variceal haemorrhage from other aetiological conditions.

Objective To compare the predictive accuracy and clinical utility of five risk scoring systems in the assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Design International multicentre prospective study.Setting Six large hospitals in Europe, North America, Asia, and Oceania.Participants 3012 consecutive patients presenting over 12 months with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Main outcome measures Comparison of pre-endoscopy scores (admission Rockall, AIMS65, and Glasgow Blatchford) and post-endoscopy scores (full Rockall and PNED) for their ability to predict predefined clinical endpoints: a composite endpoint (transfusion, endoscopic treatment, interventional radiology, surgery, or 30 day mortality), endoscopic treatment, 30 day mortality, rebleeding, and length of hospital stay. Optimum score thresholds to identify low risk and high risk patients were determined.Results The Glasgow Blatchford score was best (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.86) at predicting intervention or death compared with the full Rockall score (0.70), PNED score (0.69), admission Rockall score (0.66, and AIMS65 score (0.68) (all P<0.001). A Glasgow Blatchford score of ≤1 was the optimum threshold to predict survival without intervention (sensitivity 98.6%, specificity 34.6%). The Glasgow Blatchford score was better at predicting endoscopic treatment (AUROC 0.75) than the AIMS65 (0.62) and admission Rockall scores (0.61) (both P<0.001). A Glasgow Blatchford score of ≥7 was the optimum threshold to predict endoscopic treatment (sensitivity 80%, specificity 57%). The PNED (AUROC 0.77) and AIMS65 scores (0.77) were best at predicting mortality, with both superior to admission Rockall score (0.72) and Glasgow Blatchford score (0.64; P<0.001). Score thresholds of ≥4 for PNED, ≥2 for AIMS65, ≥4 for admission Rockall, and ≥5 for full Rockall were optimal at predicting death, with sensitivities of 65.8-78.6% and specificities of 65.0-65.3%. No score was helpful at predicting rebleeding or length of stay.Conclusions The Glasgow Blatchford score has high accuracy at predicting need for hospital based intervention or death. Scores of ≤1 appear the optimum threshold for directing patients to outpatient management. AUROCs of scores for the other endpoints are less than 0.80, therefore their clinical utility for these outcomes seems to be limited.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16235737.

No abstract

T he role of the liver in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes is attracting increasing interest. In a recent study (1), directly determined liver fat content was shown to correlate with several features of insulin resistance in normal weight and moderately overweight subjects independent of BMI and intraabdominal or overall obesity. However, direct measurements of liver fat require ultrasound, computed tomography scan, or proton spectroscopy, and such techniques are unlikely to be recommended for this purpose in routine clinical practice. Fortunately, circulating concentrations of a number of variables appear to give insight into the extent of liver fat accumulation. Among these are ␥-glutamyltransferase, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and aspartate aminotransferase (AST). Of these three, ALT is the most specific marker of liver pathology and appears to be the best marker for liver fat accumulation (2). In addition, circulating concentrations of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 may give insight into the extent of liver fat content (3) but, unlike ALT, its measurement is perhaps not as simple, standardized, or routinely available in laboratories.In light of the above observations, it is of interest that ALT has been shown to predict incident type 2 diabetes in two prospective studies (4,5). Ohlson et al. (4) determined risk factors for diabetes in 766 men, 47 of whom developed diabetes over 13.5 years of follow-up. They reported that elevated ALT predicted diabetes independently of classical predictors inclusive of BMI, blood pressure, triglycerides, and family history. However, diabetes ascertainment was not uniform in their study, and the potential utility of ALT to predict diabetes was not examined in any detail. Vozarovoa et al. (5) examined the ALT levels in a cohort of 370 Pima Indians with normal glucose tolerance, 63 of whom developed diabetes over an average follow-up of 6.9 years. In their analyses, individuals in the top decile for ALT (Ն70 units/l) had a relative risk of 2.5 (95% CI 1.7-3.7) for diabetes compared with those in the bottom decile (ALT Յ12 units/l), with adjustment for age, sex, percentage body fat, clamp-derived insulin resistance, and acute insulin response. The only minor weaknesses in that study were the absence of data on alcohol consumption and routine clinical measures known to predict diabetes, namely fasting lipids and blood pressure. Moreover, they

NHS Blood and Transplant Research and Development.

Current therapy for preventing the first variceal bleed includes beta-blocker and variceal band ligation (VBL). VBL has lower bleeding rates, with no differences in survival, whereas betablocker therapy can be limited by side effects. Carvedilol, a non-cardioselective vasodilating beta-blocker, is more effective in reducing portal pressure than propranolol; however, there have been no clinical studies assessing the efficacy of carvedilol in primary prophylaxis. The goal of this study was to compare carvedilol and VBL for the prevention of the first variceal bleed in a randomized controlled multicenter trial. One hundred fifty-two cirrhotic patients from five different centers with grade II or larger esophageal varices were randomized to either carvedilol 12.5 mg once daily or VBL performed every 2 weeks until eradication using a multibander device. T he most serious complication of portal hypertension is variceal hemorrhage. The annual incidence of esophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis is approximately 5%, 1 and a third of these will bleed. 2,3 Current therapy with propranolol results in a reduction in the first variceal bleed and mortality compared with placebo. 4,5 There have been two recent metaanalyses with 16 trials studied in total. 6,7 The one showed variceal band ligation (VBL) to be more effective than beta-blockers in primary prevention of variceal hemorrhage, although there was no difference in survival. 7 The other showed similar overall results, although when trials with unclear bias control and follow-up less than 20 months were excluded, the difference in bleeding was not present. 6 Carvedilol is a potent non-cardioselective betablocker, with weak vasodilating properties due to alpha-1 blockade. 8 A fall in both intrahepatic and portocollateral resistance contributes to the enhanced effects on portal pressure reduction through blockade of alpha-1 receptors as has been shown with prazosin. 9-11 A reduction in the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) of 8%-43% was observed with carvedilol in nine published hemodynamic studies involving 158 patients. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Carvedilol was also found to have a greater portal hypotensive effect than propranolol in randomized controlled hemodynamic studies. 15,17

These guidelines on transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt (TIPSS) in the management of portal hypertension have been commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee (CSSC) of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the Liver Section of the BSG. The guidelines are new and have been produced in collaboration with the British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR) and British Association of the Study of the Liver (BASL). The guidelines development group comprises elected members of the BSG Liver Section, representation from BASL, a nursing representative and two patient representatives. The quality of evidence and grading of recommendations was appraised using the GRADE system. These guidelines are aimed at healthcare professionals considering referring a patient for a TIPSS. They comprise the following subheadings: indications; patient selection; procedural details; complications; and research agenda. They are not designed to address: the management of the underlying liver disease; the role of TIPSS in children; or complex technical and procedural aspects of TIPSS.

No abstract