Midodrine and albumin for prevention of complications in patients with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation. A randomized placebo-controlled trial

Albumin infusion may decrease the incidence and severity of overt hepatic encephalopathy in liver cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

The role of human albumin infusion for the prevention and treatment of overt hepatic encephalopathy (HE) in liver cirrhosis remains unclear.

RESULTS

Among the 708 patients without pre-existing overt HE, albumin infusion significantly decreased the incidence of overt HE (4.20% versus 12.70%, P<0.001) and in-hospital mortality (1.70% versus 5.40%, P=0.008). Among the 182 patients with overt HE at admission or during hospitalization, albumin infusion significantly improved overt HE (84.60% versus 68.10%, P=0.009) and decreased in-hospital mortality (7.70% versus 19.80%, P=0.018). Meta-analysis of 6 studies found that albumin infusion might decrease the risk of overt HE (OR=1.63, P=0.07), but the difference was not statistically significant. Meta-analysis of 3 studies found that albumin infusion significantly improved overt HE (OR=2.40, P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of our retrospective study and meta-analysis, albumin infusion might prevent from the occurrence of overt HE and improve the severity of overt HE in cirrhosis. Our retrospective study also suggested that albumin infusion improved the outcomes of cirrhotic patients regardless of overt HE.

METHODS

Cirrhotic patients consecutively admitted between January 2010 and June 2014 were considered in a retrospective study. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was performed. Additionally, publications regarding albumin infusion for the management of overt HE were systematically searched. Meta-analyses were performed by random-effect model. Odds ratio (OR) was calculated.

Association of serum albumin level with incidence and mortality of overt hepatic encephalopathy in cirrhosis during hospitalization

BACKGROUND

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a serious complication of cirrhosis. Decreased serum albumin (ALB) level may facilitate the development of HE and accelerate the death of cirrhotic patients with HE. Recent evidence also suggests that human albumin infusion may reduce the incidence of HE and improve the outcomes of cirrhotic patients. This study aimed to explore the association of serum ALB level with the development of overt HE and HE-associated mortality during hospitalization.

METHODS

Cirrhotic patients admitted to our hospital between January 2010 and February 2019 were screened. Independent predictors for HE were identified by logistic regression analyses. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated. Area under curve (AUC) was calculated by receiver operator characteristic curve analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 2376 included patients with cirrhosis but without HE at admission, 113 (4.8%) developed overt HE during hospitalizations. ALB level (OR = 0.878, 95% CI = 0.834-0.924) was an independent risk factor for development of overt HE. AUC of ALB level for predicting the development of overt HE was 0.770 (95% CI = 0.752-0.787, p < 0.0001), and the best cut-off value was ⩽31.6 g/l. Of the 183 included patients with cirrhosis and overt HE at admission, 20 (10.9%) died during hospitalizations. ALB level (OR = 0.864, 95% CI = 0.771-0.967) was an independent risk factor for death from overt HE. The AUC of ALB level for predicting death from overt HE was 0.737 (95% CI = 0.667-0.799, p = 0.0001), and the best cut-off value was ⩽22.8 g/l.

CONCLUSIONS

Decreased serum ALB level may be associated with higher risk of overt HE and HE-associated mortality during hospitalizations in cirrhosis.

Effects of Albumin Treatment on Systemic and Portal Hemodynamics and Systemic Inflammation in Patients With Decompensated Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We investigated the effect of albumin treatment (20% solution) on hypoalbuminemia, cardiocirculatory dysfunction, portal hypertension, and systemic inflammation in patients with decompensated cirrhosis with and without bacterial infections.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study to assess the effects of long-term (12 weeks) treatment with low doses (1 g/kg body weight every 2 weeks) and high doses (1.5 g/kg every week) of albumin on serum albumin, plasma renin, cardiocirculatory function, portal pressure, and plasma levels of cytokines, collecting data from 18 patients without bacterial infections (the Pilot-PRECIOSA study). We also assessed the effect of short-term (1 week) treatment with antibiotics alone vs the combination of albumin plus antibiotics (1.5 g/kg on day 1 and 1 g/kg on day 3) on plasma levels of cytokines in biobanked samples from 78 patients with bacterial infections included in a randomized controlled trial (INFECIR-2 study).

RESULTS

Circulatory dysfunction and systemic inflammation were extremely unstable in many patients included in the Pilot-PRECIOSA study; these patients had intense and reversible peaks in plasma levels of renin and interleukin 6. Long-term high-dose albumin, but not low-dose albumin, was associated with normalization of serum level of albumin, improved stability of the circulation and left ventricular function, and reduced plasma levels of cytokines (interleukin 6, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, interleukin 1 receptor antagonist, and vascular endothelial growth factor) without significant changes in portal pressure. The immune-modulatory effects of albumin observed in the Pilot-PRECIOSA study were confirmed in the INFECIR-2 study. In this study, patients given albumin had significant reductions in plasma levels of cytokines.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of data from 2 trials (Pilot-PRECIOSA study and INFECIR-2 study), we found that albumin treatment reduced systemic inflammation and cardiocirculatory dysfunction in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. These effects might be responsible for the beneficial effects of albumin therapy on outcomes of patients with decompensated cirrhosis. ClinicalTrials.gov, Numbers: NCT00968695 and NCT03451292.

Plasma expanders for people with cirrhosis and large ascites treated with abdominal paracentesis

BACKGROUND

Plasma volume expanders are used in connection to paracentesis in people with cirrhosis to prevent reduction of effective plasma volume, which may trigger deleterious effect on haemodynamic balance, and increase morbidity and mortality. Albumin is considered the standard product against which no plasma expansion or other plasma expanders, e.g. other colloids (polygeline , dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch solutions, fresh frozen plasma), intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol have been compared. However, the benefits and harms of these plasma expanders are not fully clear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of any plasma volume expanders such as albumin, other colloids (polygeline, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch solutions, fresh frozen plasma), intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus no plasma volume expander or versus another plasma volume expander for paracentesis in people with cirrhosis and large ascites.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index until January 2019. Furthermore, we searched FDA, EMA, WHO (last search January 2019), www.clinicaltrials.gov/, and www.controlled-trials.com/ for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials, no matter their design or year of publication, publication status, and language, assessing the use of any type of plasma expander versus placebo, no intervention, or a different plasma expander in connection with paracentesis for ascites in people with cirrhosis. We considered quasi-randomised, retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials only, for reports on harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) using the fixed-effect model and the random-effects model meta-analyses, based on the intention-to-treat principle, whenever possible. If the fixed-effect and random-effects models showed different results, then we made our conclusions based on the analysis with the highest P value (the more conservative result). We assessed risks of bias of the individual trials using predefined bias risk domains. We assessed the certainty of the evidence at an outcome level, using GRADE, and constructed 'Summary of Findings' tables for seven of our review outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 27 randomised clinical trials for inclusion in this review (24 published as full-text articles and 3 as abstracts). Five of the trials, with 271 participants, assessed plasma expanders (albumin in four trials and ascitic fluid in one trial) versus no plasma expander. The remaining 22 trials, with 1321 participants, assessed one type of plasma expander, i.e. dextran, hydroxyethyl starch, polygeline, intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus another type of plasma expander, i.e. albumin in 20 of these trials and polygeline in one trial. Twenty-five trials provided data for quantitative meta-analysis. According to the Child-Pugh classification, most participants were at an intermediate to advanced stage of liver disease in the absence of hepatocellular carcinoma, recent gastrointestinal bleeding, infections, and hepatic encephalopathy. All trials were assessed as at overall high risk of bias. Ten trials seemed not to have been funded by industry; twelve trials were considered unclear about funding; and five trials were considered funded by industry or a for-profit institution.We found no evidence of a difference in effect between plasma expansion versus no plasma expansion on mortality (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.06 to 4.83; 248 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); renal impairment (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.02 to 5.88; 181 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); other liver-related complications (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.27; 248 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); and non-serious adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.40; 158 participants; 3 trials; very low certainty). Two of the trials stated that no serious adverse events occurred while the remaining trials did not report on this outcome. No trial reported data on health-related quality of life.We found no evidence of a difference in effect between experimental plasma expanders versus albumin on mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; 1014 participants; 14 trials; very low certainty); serious adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.10 to 8.30; 118 participants; 2 trials; very low certainty); renal impairment (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.91; 1107 participants; 17 trials; very low certainty); other liver-related complications (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.48; 1083 participants; 16 trials; very low certainty); and non-serious adverse events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.85; 977 participants; 14 trials; very low certainty). We found no data on heath-related quality of life and refractory ascites.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review and meta-analysis did not find any benefits or harms of plasma expanders versus no plasma expander or of one plasma expander such as polygeline, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch, intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus albumin on primary or secondary outcomes. The data originated from few, small, mostly short-term trials at high risks of systematic errors (bias) and high risks of random errors (play of chance). GRADE assessments concluded that the evidence was of very low certainty. Therefore, we can neither demonstrate or discard any benefit of plasma expansion versus no plasma expansion, and differences between one plasma expander versus another plasma expander.Larger trials at low risks of bias are needed to assess the role of plasma expanders in connection with paracentesis. Such trials should be conducted according to the SPIRIT guidelines and reported according to the CONSORT guidelines.

Con: The Unclear Benefit of Albumin

Many studies have shown that 20% human albumin solution infusions improve circulatory function in patients with advanced liver disease, and this treatment is widely recommended and used by all hepatologists. However, it is more expensive than other crystalloids or colloids, and several countries suffer shortages of supply. This article examines whether other fluids might be considered for these patients.

Pro: The Role of Albumin in Pre-Liver Transplant Management

The wait-list mortality of patients with decompensated cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation remains elevated due to the occurrence of complications. Etiologic treatments improve patient survival and lower the incidence of complications when applied in compensated cirrhosis, but a decompensated disease does not improve or even progress despite a response to therapy in a substantial number of patients. Thus, disease-modifying treatments that reduce the incidence of complications and improve survival are most needed. Such treatments should be able to counteract one or possibly more pathophysiological mechanisms and thus lead to the proinflammatory and pro-oxidant milieu that characterizes decompensated cirrhosis. In this respect, albumin represents a potentially ideal agent. In fact, besides its ability to expand plasma volume, albumin possesses nononcotic properties, exerting potent antioxidant and immune-modulating effects. Recent studies have assessed the effect of longterm albumin administration in decompensated cirrhosis. Although the results of these studies may appear conflicting, their analyses suggest that albumin, if given in a sufficient amount and for a sufficient duration, can significantly reduce the incidence of life-threatening complications of cirrhosis and patient mortality. For these reasons, we favor albumin administration to patients with decompensated cirrhosis wait-listed for liver transplantation.