Beta-blockers cause paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction in patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites: a cross-over study

[Ascites]

Ascites is the most common cause of decompensation in cirrhosis, and 5% to 10% of patients with compensated cirrhosis develop ascites each year. The main factor of ascites formation is renal sodium retention due to activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and sympathetic nervous system by the reduced effective volume secondary to splanchnic arterial vasodilation. Diagnostic paracentesis is indicated in all patients with a new onset of grade 2 or 3 ascites and in those admitted to hospital for any complication of cirrhosis. A serum-ascites albumin gradient of ≥1.1 g/dL indicates portal hypertension with an accuracy of approximately 97%. Sodium restriction, diuretics, and large volume paracentesis are the mainstay of treatment in grade 1 to 3 ascites. The refractoriness of ascites is associated with a poor prognosis with a median survival of approximately six months. Repeated large volume paracentesis plus albumin is the first line treatment, and liver transplantation is recommended in patients with refractory ascites. A careful selection of patients is also important to obtain the beneficial effects of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts in refractory ascites. This review details the recent diagnosis and treatment of cirrhotic ascites.

Nonselective Beta-Blockers Do Not Affect Survival in Cirrhotic Patients with Ascites

BACKGROUND

The role of nonselective beta-blockers in cirrhotic patients with ascites has been recently questioned; however, definitive evidence in this regard is still lacking.

AIMS

To analyze published data on the influence of nonselective beta-blockers as compared to control group on survival of cirrhotic patients with ascites.

METHODS

Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed. Hazard ratios from Kaplan-Meier curves were extracted in order to perform an unbiased comparison of survival estimates. Secondary outcomes were mortality in patients with refractory ascites, pooled rate of nonselective beta-blockers interruption, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and hepato-renal syndrome incidence.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies with 8279 patients were included. Overall survival was comparable between the two groups (hazard ratio = 0.86, 0.71-1.03, p = 0.11). Study design resulted as the main source of heterogeneity in sensitivity analysis and meta-regression. Mortality in refractory ascites patients was similar in the two groups (odds ratio = 0.90, 0.45-1.79; p = 0.76). No difference in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (odds ratio = 0.78, 0.47-1.29, p = 0.33) and hepato-renal syndrome incidence (odds ratio = 1.22, 0.48-3.09; p = 0.67) was observed. Pooled rate of nonselective beta-blockers interruption was 18.6% (5.2-32.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, nonselective beta-blockers should not be routinely withheld in patients with cirrhosis and ascites, even if refractory.

Low Fibrinogen Levels Are Associated with Bleeding After Varices Ligation in Thrombocytopenic Cirrhotic Patients

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

EVBL is a procedure frequently performed in cirrhotic patients for primary prophylaxis of bleeding. Patients with cirrhosis display various degrees of alteration of common coagulation parameters, and it is not known whether these alterations may predict post-EVBL bleeding. To evaluate factors predictive of post-endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVBL) bleeding in cirrhotic patients with thrombocytopenia.

METHODS

We included 109 patients with cirrhosis undergoing EVBL for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. Common coagulation parameters (INR, fibrinogen levels) and complete haemogram were obtained in all patients and evaluated subdividing patients in bleeders and non bleeders following EVBL.

RESULTS

The incidence of post-EVBL bleeding was 5.5% (6 patients). INR and platelet counts, considered as continuous or dichotomous variables according to common cut-offs (i.e., INR>1.5, platelet count <50x109/L) were not predictors of post-EVBL bleeding. Patients who bled had significantly lower fibrinogen levels [146 mg/dL (98 - 262) versus 230 mg/dL (104 - 638), P=0.009], and no other biochemical or clinical predictors of bleeding were identified. A fibrinogen cut-off of 179 mg/dL had 98.6% negative predictive value for bleeding.

CONCLUSION

low fibrinogen levels are associated with an increased risk of bleeding following prophylactic EVBL in cirrhotic patients, and might be used to stratify patients' risk. However, due to their preliminary nature, these findings need to be confirmed in larger populations.

Hemodynamic Evaluation of Nonselective β-Blockers in Patients with Cirrhosis and Refractory Ascites

BACKGROUND

Nonselective β-blockers (NSBB) have been associated with increased incidence of paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction (PICD) and reduced survival in patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites.

AIM

To prospectively evaluate a hemodynamic response to NSBB in cirrhotics listed for liver transplantation with refractory ascites undergoing large volume paracentesis (LVP).

METHODS

Patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites, with an indication to start NSBB in primary prophylaxis for variceal bleeding, were enrolled. During two consecutive LVP, while being, respectively, off and on NSBB, cardiac output (CO), systemic vascular resistances (SVR), peripheral vascular resistances (PVR), and plasma renin activity (PRA) were noninvasively assessed.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients were enrolled, and 10 completed the study. Before NSBB introduction, SVR (1896 to 1348 dyn·s·cm-5; p = 0.028) and PVR (47 to 30 mmHg·min·dl·ml-1; p = 0.04) significantly decreased after LVP, while CO showed an increasing trend (3.9 to 4.5 l/m; p = 0.06). After NSBB introduction, LVP was not associated with a significant increase in CO (3.4 to 3.8 l/m; p = 0.13) nor with a significant decrease in SVR (2002 versus 1798 dyn·s·cm-5; p = 0.1). Incidence of PICD was not increased after NSBB introduction.

CONCLUSION

The negative inotropic effect of NSBB was counterbalanced by a smaller decrease of vascular resistances after LVP, probably due to splanchnic β2-blockade. This pilot study showed that NSBB introduction may be void of detrimental hemodynamic effects after LVP in cirrhotics with refractory ascites.

Carvedilol for reducing portal pressure in primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding: a dose-response study

BACKGROUND

Sequential measurements of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) are used to assess the haemodynamic response to nonselective betablockers (NSBBs) in patients with portal hypertension.

AIMS

To assess the rates of HVPG response to different doses of carvedilol.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with cirrhosis undergoing HVPG-guided carvedilol therapy for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding between 08/2010 and 05/2015 were retrospectively included. After baseline HVPG measurement, carvedilol 6.25 mg/d was administered and HVPG response (HVPG-decrease ≥20% or to ≤12 mm Hg) was assessed after 3-4 weeks. In case of nonresponse, carvedilol dose was increased to 12.5 mg/d and a third HVPG-measurement was performed after 3-4 weeks. We also assessed HVPG-response rates according to the Baveno VI consensus (HVPG decrease ≥10% or to ≤12 mm Hg) and changes in systolic arterial pressure (SAP).

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients (Child A, 37%; B, 35%; C, 28%) were included. 28 (39%) patients achieved a HVPG-decrease ≥ 20% with carvedilol 6.25 mg/d and another 10 (14%) with carvedilol 12.5 mg/d. Forty (56%) patients had a HVPG decrease ≥10% with carvedilol 6.25 mg/d and 24 (33%) with carvedilol 12.5 mg/d. Thus, in total, a HVPG-response of ≥20% and ≥10% and was achieved in 38 (53%) and 55 (76%) and of patients respectively. Notably, 6 patients (n = 4 with ascites) did not tolerate an increase to 12.5 mg/d due to hypotension/bradycardia. However, none of the other patients had a SAP < 90 mm Hg at the final HVPG measurement.

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol 12.5 mg/d was more effective than 6.25 mg/d in decreasing HVPG in primary prophylaxis. A total of 76% of patients achieved a HVPG-response of ≥ 10% to carvedilol 12.5 mg/d, however, arterial hypotension might occur, especially in patients with ascites.

Management of portal hypertension before and after liver transplantation

Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) represents a curative treatment option for end-stage liver disease (ESLD). Although epidemiology of ESLD has recently changed due to the rising prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and the decreased burden of hepatitis C virus infections due to highly effective antiviral regimens, the management of portal hypertension (PHT) remains a clinical challenge in the pre- and post-OLT setting. The measurement of the hepatic venous pressure gradient represents the most reliable but invasive tool for assessment of the severity of PHT. Although novel liver ultrasound and magnetic resonance-based elastography methods have been developed, their value to screen for liver fibrosis and PHT in transplanted patients remains to be established. Nonselective beta-blockers represent the cornerstone of medical treatment of PHT, but more studies on their effects on clinical endpoints after OLT are needed. Statins are widely used to treat hyperlipidemia, which is a common condition after OLT. Although a growing body of evidence suggests that statins decrease portal pressure and PHT-related complications in ESLD, studies on potential benefits of statins after OLT are lacking. Finally, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) are effective in decreasing PHT and seem to decrease mortality on the OLT waiting list. Moreover, TIPS does not have an impact on liver function nor complicate the transplant surgical procedures. TIPS may also be used after OLT, but the evidence is limited. In conclusion, whereas the management of PHT in patients with ESLD is based on strong evidence, further data on the value of noninvasive monitoring tools as well as on medical and invasive treatment options in the post-OLT setting are needed to improve management strategies in patients with recurrent PHT after liver transplantation. Liver Transplantation 24 112-121 2018 AASLD.

Pharmacologic prevention of variceal bleeding and rebleeding

BACKGROUND

Variceal bleeding is a major complication of portal hypertension, which is associated with significant mortality. Moreover, patients surviving a variceal bleeding episode have very high risk of rebleeding, which is associated with mortality as high as that of the first bleed. Because of this, prevention of bleeding from gastroesophageal varices has been one of the main therapeutic goals since the advent of the first effective therapies for portal hypertension.

AIM

This review deals with the present day state-of-the-art pharmacological prevention of variceal bleeding in primary and secondary prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Pharmacological therapy aims to decrease portal pressure (PP) by acting on the pathophysiological mechanisms of portal hypertension such as increased hepatic vascular tone and splanchnic vasodilatation. Propranolol and nadolol block the beta-1 in the heart and the peripheral beta-2 adrenergic receptors. Beta-1 blockade of cardiac receptors reduces heart rate and cardiac output and subsequently decreases flow into splanchnic circulation. Beta-2 blockade leads to unopposed alpha-1 adrenergic activity that causes splanchnic vasoconstriction and reduction of portal inflow. Both effects contribute to reduction in PP. Carvedilol is more powerful in reducing hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) than traditional nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and achieves good hemodynamic response in nearly 75 % of cases. Simvastatin and atorvastatin improve endothelial dysfunction mainly by enhancing endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) expression and phosphorylation and NO production. In addition, statins deactivate hepatic stellate cells and ameliorate hepatic fibrogenesis. These effects cause a decrease in HVPG and improve liver microcirculation and hepatocyte perfusion in patients with cirrhosis. In addition, several promising drugs under development may change the management of portal hypertension in the coming years.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a background on the most important aspects of the treatment of portal hypertension in patients with compensated and decompensated liver cirrhosis. However, despite the great improvement in the prevention of variceal bleeding over the last years, further therapeutic options are needed.

VARICEAL BLEEDING: UPDATE OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BRAZILIAN ASSOCIATION OF HEPATOLOGY

Since the publication of the Brazilian Association of Hepatology recommendations for the prevention and treatment of variceal bleeding in 2010, new evidence-based data were reported in the literature. This has changed our current management for portal hypertension. This review updates the previous recommendations. It takes the new prognostic staging of cirrhosis into account allowing tailored treatment for advanced fibrosis, compensated or decompensated cirrhosis. An organizing panel of five experts reviewed all recommendations according to available data, which were subsequently scrutinized by all members of the Brazilian Association of Hepatology using a web-based approach. The accepted recommendations are presented in this manuscript.

Bile acids and cardiovascular function in cirrhosis

Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy and the hyperdynamic syndrome are clinically important complications of cirrhosis, but their exact pathogenesis is still partly unknown. Experimental models have proven the cardiotoxic effects of bile acids and recent studies of their varied receptor-mediated functions offer new insight into their involvement in cardiovascular dysfunction in cirrhosis. Bile acid receptors such as farnesoid X-activated receptor and TGR5 are currently under investigation as potential therapeutic targets in a variety of pathological conditions. These receptors have also recently been identified in cardiomyocytes, vascular endothelial cells and smooth muscle cells where they seem to play an important role in cellular metabolism. Chronic cholestasis leading to abnormal levels of circulating bile acids alters the normal signalling pathways and contributes to the development of profound cardiovascular disturbances. This review summarizes the evidence regarding the role of bile acids and their receptors in the generation of cardiovascular dysfunction in cirrhosis.

Non-selective beta-blocker treatment does not impact on kidney function in cirrhotic patients with varices

GOALS AND BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are used for bleeding prophylaxis in cirrhotic patients with gastroesophageal varices (GEVs). Recent data suggested that NSBB treatment might increase the risk of renal dysfunction in patients with refractory ascites due to an impaired response to acute haemodynamic stress.

STUDY

Retrospective longitudinal assessment of kidney function in a cohort of cirrhotic patients with GEVs with vs. without NSBB therapy. Serum creatinine (SCre), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), new onset of large volume ascites and TIPS-/transplant-free survival were compared.

RESULTS

Among 176 patients, 93 patients received NSBBs, while 83 did not. Most patients were male (77.8%), had alcoholic aetiology (52.3%) and compensated cirrhosis (51.1% Child-A, MELD: 12.1 ± 3.8). Over a 3-year follow-up, renal function was comparable between patients with and without NSBB treatment. Incidence of AKI was similar in NSBB vs. no-NSBB patients (p = .323). Even in potential risk groups (ascites, MAP <90 mmHg, baseline creatinine > ULN, hyponatraemia, MELD score ≥15 points, Child-Pugh B/C), there was no difference in SCre or eGFR with vs. without NSBBs (p = n.s. at 74/78 and 76/78 of analysed time points). However, multivariate analysis revealed that the presence of ascites (HR: 3.901, 95%CI: 1.352-11.251; p = .012) and pre-existing renal impairment (HR: 4.315, 95%CI: 1.054-17.672; p = .042) were independent risk factors for AKI. Importantly, NSBB use (HR: 0.319, 95%CI: 0.120-0.848; p = .022) was independently associated with improved TIPS-/transplant-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort of unselected, mostly compensated cirrhotic patients with GEVs, NSBB treatment was neither associated with worsening of kidney function nor with increased incidence of AKI. On the contrary, NSBB treatment improved TIPS-/transplant-free survival.

Non-selective beta-blockers are not associated with increased mortality in cirrhotic patients with ascites

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Controversy exists on the impact of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) on survival in patients with ascites. We assessed whether NSBB treatment affects survival in a cohort of 316 consecutive patients with ascites undergoing evaluation for liver transplantation.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with cirrhosis and ascites assessed for liver transplantation between 2011 and 2014 were retrospectively evaluated. Competing risk Cox regression analysis in the whole population and in propensity score matched patients were performed to identify predictors of survival.

RESULTS

Three hundred and sixteen patients were evaluated: males 229 (73%), mean age 54 years, median follow-up: 7 months. Refractory ascites was diagnosed in 124 (39%) patients. Patients receiving NSBBs (n=128, 40.5%) had a higher frequency of previous spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (27% vs 17%, P=.025), lower frequency of refractory ascites (32% vs 44%, P=.03) but similar MELD and UKELD scores. Overall 80 (25%) patients died: 20 (16%) in the NSBB group vs. 60 (32%) in the non-NSBB group (P=.002). In multivariate competing risk Cox regression analysis, NSBB use was associated with reduced mortality (HR=0.55, 95% CI=0.33-0.94) along with prophylactic antibiotic use (HR=0.33, 95% CI=0.14-0.74), MELD score (HR=1.10, 95% CI=1.06-1.14) and sodium levels (HR=0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.98). No impact on survival was found when considering only patients with refractory ascites (NSBB use: HR=0.43, 95% CI=0.20-1.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ascites on NSBBs did not have impaired survival compared to those not receiving NSSBs and interestingly this observation was also confirmed in the subgroup with refractory ascites. Our results suggest that NSBBs are not detrimental, but instead seem safe even in more advanced stages of cirrhosis in patients on a transplant waiting list.

Beta-blockers in patients with advanced liver disease: Has the dust settled?

Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) have been the backbone for the treatment of portal hypertension in cirrhosis for the last 3 decades. A publication in 2010 of a prospective observational study suggested that NSBBs could increase mortality in patients with refractory ascites. This opened a controversy about the safety and efficacy of NSBBs in patients with advanced liver disease and led to the publication of a large corpus of observational data assessing the safety of NSBBs in patients with advanced cirrhosis. In this article, we briefly review the clinical pharmacology of NSBBs, the pathophysiological basis for the underlying benefits and harms of NSBBs in advanced cirrhosis, and the evidence in favor and against the use of NSBBs in specific scenarios. Finally, we summarize the current recommendations and propose areas of opportunity for future research. Liver Transplantation 23 1058-1069 2017 AASLD.

Carvedilol use is associated with improved survival in patients with liver cirrhosis and ascites

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Carvedilol, a non-selective beta-blocker (NSBB) with additional anti-alpha 1 receptor activity, is a potent portal hypotensive agent and has been used as prophylaxis against variceal bleeding. However, its safety in patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis and ascites is still disputed. In this study, we examined whether long-term use of carvedilol in patients with ascites is a risk factor for mortality.

METHODS

A single-centre retrospective analysis of 325 consecutive patients with liver cirrhosis and ascites presenting to our Liver Unit between 1st of January 2009 to 31st August 2012 was carried out. The primary outcome was all-cause and liver-specific mortality in patients receiving or not receiving carvedilol as prophylaxis against variceal bleeding.

RESULTS

The final cohort after propensity score matching comprised 264 patients. Baseline ascites severity and UK end-stage liver disease (UKELD) score between carvedilol (n=132) and non-carvedilol (n=132) treated patient groups were comparable. Median follow-up time was 2.3years. Survival at the end of the follow-up was 24% and 2% for the carvedilol and the non-carvedilol groups respectively (log-rank p<0.0001). The long-term survival was significantly better in carvedilol than non-carvedilol group (log-rank p<0.001). The survival difference remained significant after adjusting for age, gender, ascites severity, aetiology of cirrhosis, previous variceal bleed, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis prophylaxis, serum albumin and UKELD with hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44, 0.80; p=0.001), suggesting a 41% reduction in mortality risk. When stratified by the severity of ascites, carvedilol therapy resulted in hazard ratio of 0.47 (95% CI: 0.29, 0.77; p=0.003) in those with mild ascites. Even with moderate or severe ascites, carvedilol use was not associated with increased mortality risk.

CONCLUSION

Long-term carvedilol therapy is not harmful in patients with decompensated cirrhosis and ascites.

LAY SUMMARY

The safety of carvedilol and other non-selective beta-blocker drugs in patients with liver cirrhosis and ascites is still debated. In this study, we have shown that carvedilol therapy in these patients was associated with reduced risk of mortality, particularly in those with mild ascites. We concluded that low dose, chronic treatment with carvedilol in patients with liver cirrhosis and ascites is not detrimental.

Beneficial and harmful effects of nonselective beta blockade on acute kidney injury in liver transplant candidates

Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) have played an important role in the prevention of portal hypertensive bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. However, recent studies have suggested that NSBBs may be harmful in some patients with end-stage liver disease. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the association between use of NSBB and the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). We conducted a nested case-control study in a cohort of liver transplant wait-list registrants. Each patient with AKI was matched to a control by the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Na score, age, serum creatinine, and follow-up duration. Out of a total of 2361 wait-list registrants, 205 patients developed AKI after a median follow-up duration of 18.2 months. When compared with matched controls, ascites (79.0% versus 51.7%) and non-Caucasian race (16.6% versus 7.8%) were more common among the cases. The frequency of NSBB use was higher among the cases than controls, albeit insignificantly (45.9% versus 37.1%; P = 0.08). In multivariate analyses, the impact of nonselective beta blockade on the development of AKI was dependent on the presence of ascites: nonselective beta blockade in patients with ascites significantly increased the risk of AKI (hazard ratio [HR], 3.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-6.95), whereas in patients without ascites, NSBB use reduced it (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.60). Potential benefits and harms of a NSBB in terms of AKI depend on the presence of ascites in liver transplant candidates. NSBB therapy in patients with cirrhosis may need to be individualized. Liver Transplantation 23 733-740 2017 AASLD.

Beta adrenergic blockade and decompensated cirrhosis

Non-selective betablockers (NSBBs) remain the cornerstone of medical treatment of portal hypertension. The evidence for their efficacy to prevent variceal bleeding is derived from prospective trials, which largely excluded patients with refractory ascites and renal failure. In parallel to the increasing knowledge on portal hypertension-induced changes in systemic hemodynamics, cardiac function, and renal perfusion, emerging studies have raised concerns about harmful effects of NSBBs. Clinicians are facing an ongoing controversy on the use of NSBBs in patients with advanced cirrhosis. On the one hand, NSBBs are effective in preventing variceal bleeding and might also have beneficial non-hemodynamic effects, however, they also potentially induce hypotension and limit the cardiac reserve. An individualized NSBB regimen tailored to the specific pathophysiological stage of cirrhosis might optimize patient management at this point. This article aims to give practical recommendations on the use of NSBBs in patients with decompensated cirrhosis.

The 35-year odyssey of beta blockers in cirrhosis: any gender difference in sight?

Cirrhosis is the end-stage of chronic liver disease and leads to the development of portal hypertension and its complications such as esophagogastric varices. Non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) are the keystone for the treatment of portal hypertension since the 1980s and, over the decades, several studies have confirmed their beneficial effect on the prevention of variceal (re)bleeding. Pharmacological studies showed effects of gender, sex hormones, oral contraceptives, and pregnancy on cytochrome P450 (CYPs) enzymes that metabolise NSBB, suggesting that gender differences might exist in the effect of NSBB. In this review, we focused on the 35-year knowledge about the use of beta blockers in cirrhosis and potential gender differences. We specifically examined the role of NSBB in pre-primary, primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, compared two commonly used NSBB (i.e., Propranolol and Carvedilol), and present the current controversies about the window of treatment in advanced cirrhosis with a specific focus on gender differences in NSBB effects. NSBB are not currently recommended in pre-primary prophylaxis of varices mainly because of lack of proven efficacy. On the other hand, NSBB are strongly recommended in patient with cirrhosis as primary (as alternative to endoscopic band ligation, EBL) and secondary prophylaxis (in addition to EBL) of variceal bleeding. To date, no studies have focused specifically on the effect of gender on NSBB treatment. Data extrapolated from clinical studies show that gender was neither a risk factor for the development of varices nor associated with a different response to treatment in primary or secondary prophylaxis. According to the available guidelines, no different, gender-based treatment for portal hypertension is recommended.

Beta blockers and cirrhosis, 2016

To date, non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) are a cornerstone in the treatment of portal hypertension. During the last years, our understanding of the potential benefits of early initiation of NSBB treatment, their effects beyond the prevention of variceal bleeding (i.e., their non-hemodyamic effects), as well as potential detrimental effects in patients with advanced disease has continuously evolved. In addition, we have learned that not all NSBBs are equal. Due to its additional anti-α1-adrenergic activity, carvedilol has been shown to be more potent in decreasing portal pressure, but might lead to more pronounced decreases in systemic arterial pressure, when compared to conventional NSBBs. It might be particularly beneficial in 'early' portal hypertension, when potential detrimental effects on systemic hemodynamics are less critical. In contrast, there is increasing evidence that the use of carvedilol or high NSBB doses should be carefully scrutinized in patients with severe or refractory ascites. Our review summarizes the current knowledge on the use of NSBBs for preventing variceal bleeding and other decompensating events and provides guidance for their safe use in hemodynamically 'vulnerable' patient populations. Finally, we also highlight areas for further research.

Non-selective β-blockers in advanced cirrhosis: a critical review of the effects on overall survival and renal function

INTRODUCTION

Non-selective β-blockers (NSBBs) are widely prescribed in patients with cirrhosis for primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding oesophageal varices. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the clinical benefits of NSBBs may extend beyond their haemodynamic effects. Recently, a potentially harmful effect has been described in patients with refractory ascites or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.

METHODOLOGY

A comprehensive literature search on β-blockers and cirrhosis survival using the electronic databases PubMed/MEDLINE, AMED, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Full-text manuscripts published over more than 35 years, from 1980 to April 2016 were reviewed for relevance and reference lists were cross-checked for additional pertinent studies regarding potential NSBB effects, especially focused on those concerned with survival and/or acute kidney injury (AKI).

DISCUSSION

The proposed review will be able to provide valuable evidence to help decision making in the use of NSBB for the treatment of advanced cirrhosis and highlights some limitations in existing evidence to direct future research.

Albumin May Prevent the Morbidity of Paracentesis-Induced Circulatory Dysfunction in Cirrhosis and Refractory Ascites: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Large-volume total paracentesis may result in paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction, which is associated with poor outcomes.

AIMS

To explore the short- and long-term effects of paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction on systemic hemodynamics, renal function and other cirrhosis-related complications in patients with refractory ascites, following subtotal large-volume paracentesis.

METHODS

Patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites without renal dysfunction had systemic hemodynamics, renal function, and neurohormones (plasma active renin, aldosterone, norepinephrine and angiotensin II) measured pre- and 6 days post-paracentesis. Paracentesis was limited to ≤8 L with 6-8 g of albumin per liter ascites drained. Patients were followed up until transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt insertion, liver transplantation, or death. Paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction was defined as >50 % increase in plasma active renin 6 days post-paracentesis.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients (mean age 59.0 ± 9.4 years) had mean 6.8 ± 1.8 L of ascites removed with 9 ± 3 g of albumin given/L of ascites drained. Patients were followed up for 715 ± 104 days. Twenty-three patients (40.4 %) developed paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction with unchanged serum creatinine on day six, despite worsening of hemodynamics (mean arterial pressure 90 ± 10 mmHg at baseline vs. 84 ± 8 mmHg on day six, p < 0.05). Similar hemodynamic changes were observed among patients without paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction. There was no significant difference in the long-term renal function or cirrhosis-related complications between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The occurrence of paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction, as defined by plasma active renin, may not have a significant short- and long-term impact on renal function or cirrhosis-related complications in patients with refractory ascites who undergo subtotal paracentesis with albumin infusion.

Hepatorenal syndrome in cirrhosis: diagnostic, pathophysiological, and therapeutic aspects

Renal failure is a common and serious complication in cirrhosis and represents a wide spectrum of etiologies. The hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) represents a distinct type of renal failure, only seen in cirrhotic patients with ascites. The diagnostic criteria, knowledge in the pathophysiology of renal failure and HRS, and treatment hereof, have evolved tremendously during the last decades, and it is the aim of this review to summarize these discoveries. Areas covered: The focus will primarily be on treatment and prevention of renal failure and HRS, but areas concerning definition, diagnosis, including biomarkers, and pathophysiology, will also be covered through a comprehensive, critical reading of the latest literature, encompassing the most recent, updated, international guidelines, reviews and high-impact original literature. Expert commentary: The advances made in the understanding of the pathophysiology of HRS and other complications of cirrhosis within the recent decades, have provided the basis for improved diagnostic criteria and the development of treatments that have substantially increased survival rates in cirrhotic patients suffering from these conditions. Focus should, in the nearest future, be on continuing this positive development, thus further improving prognosis for cirrhotic patients with HRS.

Rethinking the role of non-selective beta blockers in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension

Non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) are commonly used to prevent portal hypertensive bleeding in cirrhotics. Nevertheless, in the last years, the use of NSBB in critically decompensated patients, especially in those with refractory ascites, has been questioned, mainly for an increased risk of mortality and worsening of systemic hemodynamics. Moreover, even if NSBB have been reported to correlate with a higher risk of renal failure and severe infection in patients with advanced liver disease and hypotension, their use has been associated with a reduction of risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, modification of gut permeability and reduction of bacterial translocation. This manuscript systematically reviews the published evidences about harms and benefits of the use of NSBB in patients with decompensated cirrhosis.

Nonselective β-Blockers and Survival in Patients With Cirrhosis and Ascites: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs), given to reduce the risk of variceal bleeding, have been associated with increased mortality in patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites in some, but not all, studies. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of NSBBs on all-cause mortality in patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through January 2015, supplemented with a manual search. Trial-specific risk ratios (RRs) were pooled using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 3 randomized control trials and 8 observational studies of propranolol, carvedilol, nadolol, and metoprolol, reporting 1206 deaths among 3145 patients with ascites. The control groups received other interventions to prevent variceal bleeding. NSBB use was not associated with increased all-cause mortality in all patients with ascites (RR, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.35); nonrefractory ascites alone (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.50-1.82), or refractory ascites alone (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.57-1.61). Results were similar in randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Use of NSBBs was not associated with increased mortality at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Overall, the included studies had a medium to high risk of bias, except for 3 clinical trials in which the risk of biased was determined to be low.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of NSBBs was not associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality in patients with cirrhosis and ascites or refractory ascites. Certainty in the available estimates is low; a randomized trial of only patients with ascites is needed to answer this question. This meta-analysis does not support the position that NSBBs routinely be withheld from patients with ascites.

The Beneficial Effect of Beta-Blockers in Patients With Cirrhosis, Portal Hypertension and Ascites

BACKGROUND

Patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertensive complications have reduced survival. As such, it has been suggested that nonselective beta-blocker therapy in patients with advanced ascites is harmful. The aim of this study was, therefore, to determine the risk of mortality in patients with cirrhosis and ascites taking nonselective beta-blocker therapy for the prevention of variceal hemorrhage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of 2,419 patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension admitted to Parkland Memorial Hospital (a university-affiliated county teaching hospital) from 2003-2010. Patients were subdivided into those with varices only, ascites only and those with both varices and ascites. The primary outcome measure for this study was all-cause in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 68 of 1,039 (6.5%) patients taking beta-blockers died during their hospitalization, while 223 of 1,380 (16.2%) patients not taking beta-blockers died (P < 0.001). Beta-blocker use was also assessed in specific cohorts; mortality was 21.1% in patients with severe ascites with varices who were not taking beta-blockers compared with 8.9% in patients who were taking beta-blockers (P = 0.05). Overall, fewer patients taking beta-blockers died compared with those not taking beta-blockers in patients with varices only (6.4% versus 12.1%) and those with ascites with or without varices (6.6% versus 18.1%) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality was lower in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension taking nonselective beta-blockers than in those not taking beta-blockers. The use of nonselective beta-blockers provided a significant survival benefit in patients with all grades of ascites, including those with severe ascites.

Nonselective β-blockers do not affect mortality in cirrhosis patients with ascites: Post Hoc analysis of three randomized controlled trials with 1198 patients

The safety of nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) in advanced cirrhosis has been questioned. We used data from three satavaptan trials to examine whether NSBBs increase mortality in cirrhosis patients with ascites. The trials were conducted in 2006-2008 and included 1198 cirrhosis patients with ascites followed for 1 year. We used Cox regression to compare all-cause mortality and cirrhosis-related mortality between patients who did and those who did not use NSBBs at randomization, controlling for age, gender, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, Child-Pugh score, serum sodium, previous variceal bleeding, cirrhosis etiology, and ascites severity. Moreover, we identified clinical events predicting that a patient would stop NSBB treatment. At randomization, the 559 NSBB users were more likely than the 629 nonusers to have a history of variceal bleeding but less likely to have Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis, hyponatremia, or refractory ascites. The 52-week cumulative all-cause mortality was similar in the NSBB user and nonuser groups (23.2% versus 25.3%, adjusted hazard ratio = 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.18), and NSBBs also did not increase mortality in the subgroup of patients with refractory ascites (588 patients, adjusted hazard ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.74-1.40) or in any other subgroup. Similarly, NSBBs did not increase cirrhosis-related mortality (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.76-1.31). During follow-up, 29% of initial NSBB users stopped taking NSBBs, and the decision to stop NSBB treatment marked a sharp rise in mortality and coincided with hospitalization, variceal bleeding, bacterial infection, and/or development of hepatorenal syndrome.

CONCLUSION

This large and detailed data set on worldwide nonprotocol use of NSBBs in cirrhosis patients with ascites shows that NSBBs did not increase mortality; the decision to stop NSBB treatment in relation to stressful events may have added to the safety. (Hepatology 2016;63:1968-1976).

Preventing and Treating Acute Kidney Injury Among Hospitalized Patients with Cirrhosis and Ascites: A Narrative Review

Acute kidney injury in the setting of ascites and cirrhosis is a medical emergency characterized by significant morbidity and mortality. Clinicians other than gastroenterologists are often the front line against acute kidney injury for patients with ascites. Owing to the specifics of cirrhotic physiology, the treatment and prevention of acute kidney injury in the setting of ascites has unique features, widespread knowledge of which will benefit our patients with cirrhosis. Early detection and treatment of infection, maximization of cardiac output, and avoidance of medications that limit cardiorenal adaptations to arterial underfilling are part of a multipronged strategy to protect the renal function of our patients with cirrhosis and ascites.

Treatment with non-selective beta blockers is associated with reduced severity of systemic inflammation and improved survival of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) have been shown to have deleterious outcomes in patients with refractory ascites, alcoholic hepatitis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis leading many physicians to stop the drug in these cases. Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is characterized by systemic inflammation and high mortality. As NSBBs may have beneficial effects on gut motility and permeability and, systemic inflammation, the aims of this prospective, observational study were to determine whether ongoing use of NSBBs reduced 28-day mortality in ACLF patients.

METHODS

The study was performed in 349 patients with ACLF included in the CANONIC study, which is a prospective observational investigation in hospitalized cirrhotic patients with acute deterioration. The data about the use of NSBBs, its type and dosage was specifically recorded. Patient characteristics at enrollment significantly associated with treatment and mortality were taken into account as potential confounders to adjust for treatment effect. A logistic regression model was fitted.

RESULTS

164 (47%) ACLF patients received NSBBs whereas 185 patients did not. Although the CLIF-C ACLF scores were similar at presentation, more patients in the NSBB treated group had lower grades of ACLF (p=0.047) at presentation and significantly more patients improved. Forty patients (24.4%) died in NSBB treated group compared with 63 patients (34.1%) (p=0.048) [estimated risk-reduction 0.596 (95%CI: 0.361-0.985; p=0.0436)]. This improvement in survival was associated with a significantly lower white cell count (NSBB: 8.5 (5.8); no NSBB: 10.8 (6.6); p=0.002). No long-term improvement in survival was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows for the first time that ongoing treatment with NSBBs in cirrhosis is safe and reduces the mortality if they develop ACLF. Careful thought should be given before stopping NSBBs in cirrhotic patients.

The impact of paracentesis flow rate in patients with liver cirrhosis on the development of paracentesis induced circulatory dysfunction

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Ascites is a dreadful complication of liver cirrhosis associated with short survival. Large volume paracentesis (LVP) is used to treat tense or refractory ascites. Paracentesis induced circulatory dysfunction (PICD) develops if no plasma expanders are given with ominous complications. To study the effect of ascites flow rate on PICD development.

METHODS

Sixty patients with cirrhosis and tense ascites underwent LVP of 8 L were randomized into 3 equal groups of different flow rate extraction; group I (80 mL/minute), group II (180 mL/minute) and group III (270 mL/minute). Plasma renin activity (PRA) was measured baseline and on day six. PICD was defined as increase in PRA >50% of the pretreatment value.

RESULTS

In group I through 3; the mean age was (52.5±9.4 vs. 56.4±8.5 vs. 55.8±7.1 years; P>0.05), mean arterial pressure (81.4±5.6 vs. 81.5±7 vs. 79.5±7.2 mmHg; P>0.05), MELD (17.6±4.1 vs. 15.8±4.1 vs. 14.7±4.5). Baseline PRA was comparable (1,366.0±1244.9 vs. 1,151.3±1,444.8 vs. 951.9±1,088 pg/mL; P>0.05). There was no statistically significant (P>0.05) flow mediated changes (Δ) of creatinine (0.23±0.27 vs. 0.38±0.33 vs. 0.26±0.18 mg/dL), MELD (1.25±5.72 vs. 1.70±2.18 vs. 1.45±2.21) or PRA (450.93±614.10 vs. 394.61±954.64 vs. 629.51±1,116.46 pg/mL). PICD was detected in a similar frequency in the three groups (P>0.05). On univariate logistic analysis only female sex was a fairly significant PICD predictor (Wald 3.85, odds ratio 3.14; P=0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The ascites flow rate does not correlate with PICD development.

Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy

During the course of cirrhosis, there is a progressive deterioration of cardiac function manifested by the disappearance of the hyperdynamic circulation due to a failure in heart function with decreased cardiac output. This is due to a deterioration in inotropic and chronotropic function which takes place in parallel with a diastolic dysfunction and cardiac hypertrophy in the absence of other known cardiac disease. Other findings of this specific cardiomyopathy include impaired contractile responsiveness to stress stimuli and electrophysiological abnormalities with prolonged QT interval. The pathogenic mechanisms of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy include impairment of the b-adrenergic receptor signalling, abnormal cardiomyocyte membrane lipid composition and biophysical properties, ion channel defects and overactivity of humoral cardiodepressant factors. Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy may be difficult to determine due to the lack of a specific diagnosis test. However, an echocardiogram allows the detection of the diastolic dysfunction and the E/e′ ratio may be used in the follow-up progression of the illness. Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy plays an important role in the pathogenesis of the impairment of effective arterial blood volume and correlates with the degree of liver failure. A clinical consequence of cardiac dysfunction is an inadequate cardiac response in the setting of vascular stress that may result in renal hypoperfusion leading to renal failure. The prognosis is difficult to establish but the severity of diastolic dysfunction may be a marker of mortality risk. Treatment is non-specific and liver transplantation may normalize the cardiac function.

Varices and Variceal Hemorrhage in Cirrhosis: A New View of an Old Problem

The management of portal hypertension in cirrhosis has evolved over time, leading to improvements in the care and survival of patients with varices and variceal hemorrhage, particularly in patients who achieve a significant reduction in portal pressure. In addition to better treatment strategies and improved therapeutic options, the issue of risk stratification has become essential to identify different patient subpopulations that require a different treatment. We now recognize that the management of varices and variceal hemorrhage must be taken in the context of other complications of cirrhosis (ascites, encephalopathy, jaundice) and that the goals of therapy should be based on the presence of such complications. Evolving knowledge of the predominant pathophysiological mechanisms at each of the stages of cirrhosis also has evolved and will continue to lead to improvements in therapy. This review focuses on the management of varices and variceal hemorrhage with respect to refinements in the risk stratification of patients with cirrhosis.

Clinical and pathophysiological consequences of alterations in the microbiome in cirrhosis

Cirrhosis is a major cause of mortality worldwide. Exponential rises in prevalence have been observed secondary to increases in obesity and alcohol consumption. Multiple lines of evidence implicate gut-derived bacteria and bacterial ligands as a central driver of pathogenesis. Recent developments in culture-independent techniques have facilitated a more accurate description of microbiome composition in cirrhosis and led to the description of measures of dysbiosis shown to be associated with disease. More importantly, metagenomic studies are adding to an understanding of the functional contribution of the microbiota and may prove to be a more clinically relevant biomarker than phylogenetic studies. Much like other dysbiotic states such as inflammatory bowel disease, the microbiota in cirrhosis is characterized by a low microbial and genetic diversity. Therapeutic strategies to diminish this process are currently limited to selective intestinal decontamination with antibiotics. This review summarizes the available data and develops a framework for the use of current and future treatment strategies to diminish the consequences of dysbiosis in cirrhosis. Interventional strategies to bind bacterial products in the gut lumen and blood, and modulate the magnitude of host sensing mechanisms remain an unmet clinical need. A greater understanding of the host-microbiota interaction in cirrhosis is of key importance to inform future interventional strategies to diminish the currently escalating burden of the disease.

The use of beta-blockers is associated with the occurrence of acute kidney injury in severe alcoholic hepatitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The beneficial effect of nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB) has recently been questioned in patients with end-stage cirrhosis. We analysed the impact of NSBB on outcomes in severe alcoholic hepatitis (AH).

METHODS

This study was based on a prospective database of patients with severe, biopsy-proven AH. Patients admitted from July, 2006 to July, 2014 were retrospectively studied. Patients were divided into two groups (with and without NSBB) and assessed for the occurrence of Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) and transplant-free mortality during a 168-day follow-up period.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-nine patients were included, the mean Maddrey score was 71 ± 34 and 86 patients (61.9%) developed AKI. Forty-eight patients (34.5%) received NSBB. The overall 168-day transplant-free mortality was 50.5% (95%CI, 41.3-60.0%). The overall 168-day cumulative incidence of AKI was 61.9% (95%CI, 53.2-69.4%). When compared, patients with NSBB had a lower heart rate (65 ± 13 vs 92 ± 12, P < 0.0001) and a lower mean arterial pressure (MAP, 78 ± 3 vs 87 ± 5, P < 0.0001). Patients with NSBB had comparable MELD scores, Maddrey scores, and medical histories. The 168-day transplant-free mortality was 56.8% (95%CI, 41.3-69.7%) in patients with NSBB and 46.7% (95%CI, 35.0-57.6%) without NSBB (P = 0.25). The 168-day cumulative incidence of AKI was 89.6% (95%CI, 74.9-95.9%) with NSBB compared to 50.4% (95%CI: 39.0-60.7) for no NSBB (P = 0.0001). The independent factors predicting AKI were a higher MELD score and the presence of NSBB.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of NSBB in patients with severe AH is independently associated with a higher cumulative incidence of AKI.

Non-selective β-blockers are associated with improved survival in patients with ascites listed for liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE

Recent data have suggested that non-selective β-blockers (NSBB) are associated with increased mortality in patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites. However, other evidence implies that NSBB may be beneficial in this setting by reducing bacterial translocation. Our aim was to determine whether NSBB use was a risk factor for mortality in patients with end-stage chronic liver disease and ascites awaiting liver transplantation.

DESIGN

This was a single-centre retrospective study of 322 patients with ascites listed January 2007 to July 2011.

RESULTS

NSBB patients (n=159) and non-NSBB patients (n=163) were comparable with regards to listing model for end-stage liver disease score (p=0.168), frequency of hepatocellular carcinoma (p=0.193) and refractory ascites (35.2% vs. 37.4%, p=0.681). 82 patients died, 221 patients were transplanted and 19 patients were removed from the list during a median follow-up duration of 72 days; the median time to death was 150 and 54 days in the NSBB and non-NSBB groups, respectively. In a multivariate competing risk Cox model, patients on NSBB had reduced mortality compared with propensity risk score-matched non-NSBB patients (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.95, p=0.032). Similarly, in the subgroup of patients with refractory ascites (n=117), NSBB remained independently associated with less waitlist death (adjusted HR 0.35; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.86, p=0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

NSBB in patients with ascites and refractory ascites listed for liver transplantation are not detrimental, and instead are associated with reduced waitlist death. Our findings argue that NSBB are safe and may confer benefit in patients with ascites complicating end-stage liver disease.

Cardiac dysfunction in patients with cirrhosis: is the systolic component its main feature?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the subclinical cardiac morphological and functional modifications in cirrhotic patients according to the stage of liver disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and thirteen cirrhotic patients underwent standard Doppler echocardiography and were compared with healthy individuals. Left ventricular (LV) geometry, systolic/diastolic function, and the main hemodynamic parameters were assessed according to current guidelines.

RESULTS

Cirrhotic patients showed a reduction in the peripheral vascular resistance (PVR), a compensatory hyperdynamic syndrome, and a significant increase in cardiac index (CI), cardiac output (CO), and cardiac work, with a consequent increase in the prevalence of LV hypertrophy and associated diastolic dysfunction (DD). Age (P=0.005) and LV mass index (P=0.03) were the strongest predictors of DD. Even though all the systolic parameters assessed were similar between patients and controls, in patients with refractory ascites, the reduction of the PVR and mean blood pressure was not balanced by a further increase in cardiac work and therefore the CI and CO were supported only by the increase in heart rate.

CONCLUSION

In cirrhotic patients, DD is strongly related to the increase in LV mass, not related to the stage of the liver disease, and can be correctly detectable only by the use of tissue Doppler imaging. For systolic dysfunction, along with the development and worsening of ascites, CO and CI do not increase further to compensate the continuous reduction of PVR and mean blood pressure, and their maintenance becomes critically dependent on the heart rate, thus suggesting a possible detrimental effect of β-blockers in these patients.

Recent advances in cirrhotic cardiomyopathy

Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy, a cardiac dysfunction presented in patients with cirrhosis, represents a recently recognized clinical entity. It is characterized by altered diastolic relaxation, impaired contractility, and electrophysiological abnormalities, in particular prolongation of the QT interval. Several mechanisms seem to be involved in the pathogenesis of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy, including impaired function of beta-receptors, altered transmembrane currents, and overproduction of cardiodepressant factors, like nitric oxide, tumor necrosis factor α, and endogenous cannabinoids. Diastolic dysfunction is the first manifestation of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy and reflects the increased stiffness of the cardiac mass, which leads to delayed left ventricular filling. On the other hand, systolic incompetence is presented later, is usually unmasked during pharmacological or physical stress, and predisposes to the development of hepatorenal syndrome. The prolongation of QT is found in about 50 % of cirrhotic patients, but rarely leads to fatal arrhythmias. Cirrhotics with blunted cardiac function seem to have poorer survival rates compared to those without, and the risk is particularly increased during the insertion of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt or liver transplantation. Till now, there is no specific treatment for the management of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy. New agents, targeting to its pathogenetical mechanisms, may play some role as future therapeutic options.

Nonselective beta-blockers in cirrhotic patients with no or small varices: A meta-analysis

AIM

To explore effects of nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) in cirrhotic patients with no or small varices.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct, and Cochrane library databases were searched for relevant papers. A meta-analysis was performed using ORs with 95%CI as the effect sizes. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to the studies including patients without varices and those with small varices.

RESULTS

Overall, 784 papers were initially retrieved from the database searches, of which six randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The incidences of large varices development (OR = 1.05, 95%CI: 0.25-4.36; P = 0.95), first upper gastrointestinal bleeding (OR = 0.59, 95%CI: 0.24-1.47; P = 0.26), and death (OR = 0.70, 95%CI: 0.45-1.10; P = 0.12) were similar between NSBB and placebo groups. However, the incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the NSBB group compared with the placebo group (OR = 3.47, 95%CI: 1.45-8.33; P = 0.005). The results of subgroup analyses were similar to those of overall analyses.

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis indicate that NSBBs should not be recommended for cirrhotic patients with no or small varices.