Comparison of 24 vs 72-hour octreotide infusion in acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage - a multi-center, randomized clinical trial.

Abstract

Background: Current guidelines lack clarity about the optimal duration of octreotide therapy for patients with esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH). To address this lack of evidence, we conducted a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of 24-hours versus 72-hours continuous infusion of octreotide for patients with EVH.

Methods: This multi-center, prospective RCT (NCT03624517), randomized patients with EVH to 24-hour versus 72-hour infusion of octreotide. Patients were required to undergo esophageal variceal band ligation prior to enrollment. The primary endpoint was rebleeding rate at 72 hours. The study was terminated early due to an inability to recruit during and after the COVID-19 epidemic.

Results: For patients randomized to 72-hours (n = 19) of octreotide vs 24-hours (n = 15), there were no differences in the need for transfusion, average pRBC units transfused per patient (3 units vs 2 units), infection (5% vs 0%), mechanical ventilation (11% vs 7%), or the need for vasopressors (5% vs 3%), respectively (none of these differences were statistically significantly different). There were 2 re-bleeding events in the 72-hour group (11%), and no re-bleeding events in the 24-hour group (p = 0.49). 8/15 of patients receiving 24 hours of octreotide were discharged at or before hospital day 3 while none in the 72-hour group was discharged before day 3 (p < 0.001). There was one death (in the 72-hour group) within 30 days.

Conclusions: A 24-hour infusion is non-inferior to a 72-hour infusion of octreotide for prevention of re-bleeding in patients with EVH. We propose that shortened octreotide duration may help reduce hospital stay and related costs in these patients.