Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies are increasingly used in liver transplant (LT) candidates and recipients due to cardiovascular comorbidities, portal vein thrombosis, or to manage posttransplant complications. The implementation of the new direct-acting oral anticoagulants and the recently developed antiplatelet drugs is a great challenge for transplant teams worldwide, as their activity must be monitored and their complications managed, in the absence of robust scientific evidence. In this changing and clinically heterogeneous scenario, the Spanish Society of Liver Transplantation and the Spanish Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis aimed to achieve consensus regarding the indications, drugs, dosing, and timing of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies initiated from the inclusion of the patient on the waiting list to post-LT surveillance. A multidisciplinary group of experts composed by transplant hepatologists, surgeons, hematologists, transplant-specialized anesthesiologists, and intensivists performed a comprehensive review of the literature and identified 21 clinically relevant questions using the patient-intervention-comparison-outcome format. A preliminary list of recommendations was drafted and further validated using a modified Delphi approach by a panel of 24 transplant delegates, each representing a LT institution in Spain. The present consensus statement contains the key recommendations together with the core supporting scientific evidence, which will provide guidance for improved and more homogeneous clinical decision making.

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments.

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms.

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices.

We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS software, using Bayesian methods, and calculated the differences in treatments using odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed also the direct comparisons from RCTs using the same codes and the same technical details.

We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention.

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a complication with a high mortality rate in critically ill patients presenting with cirrhosis. Today, there exist few accurate scoring models specifically designed for mortality risk assessment in critically ill cirrhotic patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (CICGIB). Our aim was to develop and evaluate a novel nomogram-based model specific for CICGIB.

Overall, 540 consecutive CICGIB patients were enrolled. On the basis of Cox regression analyses, the nomogram was constructed to estimate the probability of 30-day, 90-day, 270-day, and 1-year survival. An upper gastrointestinal bleeding-chronic liver failure-sequential organ failure assessment (UGIB-CLIF-SOFA) score was derived from the nomogram. Performance assessment and internal validation of the model were performed using Harrell's concordance index (C-index), calibration plot, and bootstrap sample procedures. UGIB-CLIF-SOFA was also compared with other prognostic models, such as CLIF-SOFA and model for end-stage liver disease, using C-indices.

Eight independent factors derived from Cox analysis (including bilirubin, creatinine, international normalized ratio, sodium, albumin, mean artery pressure, vasopressin used, and hematocrit decrease>10%) were assembled into the nomogram and the UGIB-CLIF-SOFA score. The calibration plots showed optimal agreement between nomogram prediction and actual observation. The C-index of the nomogram using bootstrap (0.729; 95% confidence interval: 0.689-0.766) was higher than that of the other models for predicting survival of CICGIB.

We have developed and internally validated a novel nomogram and an easy-to-use scoring system that accurately predicts the mortality probability of CICGIB on the basis of eight easy-to-obtain parameters. External validation is now warranted in future clinical studies.