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

Association of non-selective β blockers with the development of renal dysfunction in liver cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Non-selective β blockers (NSBBs) may negatively influence renal function through decreasing heart rate and cardiac output. This study aimed to systematically investigate their association.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases were searched to identify all relevant studies evaluating the association of NSBBs with renal dysfunction in cirrhotic patients. Unadjusted and adjusted data were separately extracted. Odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled. Subgroup meta-analyses were performed according to the proportions of ascites and Child-Pugh class B/C and the mean model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were finally included. Based on unadjusted data, NSBBs significantly increased the risk of developing renal dysfunction (OR = 1.49; p = 0.03), and this association remained significant in subgroup analyses of studies where the proportions of ascites was >70% and Child-Pugh class B/C was 100%. Based on adjusted data with propensity score matching (adjusted OR = 0.61; p = 0.08) and multivariable regression modelling (adjusted HR = 0.86; p = 0.713), NSBBs did not increase the risk of developing renal dysfunction, and this association remained not significant in subgroup analyses of studies where the proportions of ascites was >70% and <70%, the proportion of Child-Pugh class B/C was <100%, and the mean MELD score was <15. The quality of evidence was very low for all meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

NSBBs may not be associated with the development of renal dysfunction in liver cirrhosis. However, more evidence is required to clarify their association in specific populations.

Non-selective beta-blockers and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a serious complication of cirrhosis. Currently, non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are commonly used to treat portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis. The latest research shows that NSBBs can induce apoptosis and S-phase arrest in liver cancer cells and inhibit the development of hepatic vascular endothelial cells, which may be effective in preventing HCC in cirrhosis patients. Aim: To determine the relationship between different NSBBs and HCC incidence in patients with cirrhosis. Methods: We searched the Cochrane database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. Cohort studies, case‒control studies, and randomized controlled trials were included if they involved cirrhosis patients who were divided into an experimental group using NSBBs and a control group with any intervention. Based on heterogeneity, we calculated odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effect models. We also conducted subgroup analysis to explore the source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias detection were performed. Results: A total of 47 studies included 38 reporting HCC incidence, 26 reporting HCC-related mortality, and 39 reporting overall mortality. The HCC incidence between the experimental group and the control group was OR = 0.87 (0.69 and 1.10), p = 0.000, and I2 = 81.8%. There was no significant association between propranolol (OR = 0.94 and 95%CI 0.62-1.44) or timolol (OR = 1.32 and 95%CI 0.44-3.95) and HCC incidence, while the risk of HCC decreased by 26% and 38% with nadolol (OR = 0.74 and 95%CI 0.64-0.86) and carvedilol (OR = 0.62 and 95%CI 0.52-0.74), respectively. Conclusion: Different types of NSBB have different effects on the incidence of patients with cirrhosis of the liver, where nadolol and carvedilol can reduce the risk. Also, the effect of NSBBs may vary in ethnicity. Propranolol can reduce HCC incidence in Europe and America. Systematic Review Registration: identifier https://CRD42023434175, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.

Management of refractory ascites

The development of refractory ascites in approximately 10% of patients with decompensated cirrhosis heralds the progression to a more advanced stage of cirrhosis. Its pathogenesis is related to significant hemodynamic changes, initiated by portal hypertension, but ultimately leading to renal hypoperfusion and avid sodium retention. Inflammation can also contribute to the pathogenesis of refractory ascites by causing portal microthrombi, perpetuating the portal hypertension. Many complications accompany the development of refractory ascites, but renal dysfunction is most common. Management starts with continuation of sodium restriction, which needs frequent reviews for adherence; and regular large volume paracentesis of 5 L or more with albumin infusions to prevent the development of paracentesisinduced circulatory dysfunction. Albumin infusions independent of paracentesis may have a role in the management of these patients. The insertion of a covered, smaller diameter, transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic stent shunt (TIPS) in the appropriate patients with reasonable liver reserve can bring about improvement in quality of life and improved survival after ascites clearance. Devices such as an automated low-flow ascites pump may be available in the future for ascites treatment. Patients with refractory ascites should be referred for liver transplant, as their prognosis is poor. In patients with refractory ascites and concomitant chronic kidney disease of more than stage 3b, assessment should be referred for dual liver-kidney transplants. In patients with very advanced cirrhosis not suitable for any definitive treatment for ascites control, palliative care should be involved to improve the quality of life of these patients.

Non-selective beta-blockers in patients with ascites: The complex interplay among the liver, kidney and heart

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are the cornerstone of the primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients. They additionally prevent ascites development and death in compensated patients with clinically significant portal hypertension. After ascites onset, NSBBs remain beneficial for preventing further decompensations. However, as the cirrhosis progresses, the inflammation increases, systemic vasodilatation worsens, ascites turns refractory and cardiodynamic equilibrium becomes extremely fragile. In this scenario, NSBBs can critically impair the cardiac reserve and facilitate a haemodynamic breakdown, imperilling renal perfusion. Consequently, NSBB treatment should be carefully monitored or even avoided in such patients, and other options for portal hypertension management should be considered. In the present review, we explore the effects of NSBBs in patients with ascites and discuss the complex interplay among their hepatic, systemic and renal haemodynamic effects in this scenario.

β-blockers in advanced cirrhosis: More friend than enemy

Nonselective beta-adrenergic blocker (NSBB) therapy for the prevention of initial and recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with gastroesophageal varices has been used for the past four decades. NSBB therapy is considered the cornerstone of treatment for varices, and has become the standard of care. However, a 2010 study from the group that pioneered β-blocker therapy suggested a detrimental effect of NSBBs in decompensated cirrhosis, especially in patients with refractory ascites. Since then, numerous additional studies have incompletely resolved whether NSBBs are deleterious, although more recent evidence weighs against a harmful effect. The possibility of a "therapeutic window" has also been raised. We aimed to review the literature to analyze the pros and cons of using NSBBs in patients with cirrhosis, not only with respect to bleeding or mortality but also to other potential benefits and risks. β-blockers are highly effective in preventing first bleeding and recurrent bleeding. Furthermore, NSBBs improve congestion/ischemia of the gut mucosa, decrease intestinal permeability, and therefore indirectly alleviate systemic inflammation. β-blockers shorten the electrocardiographic prolonged QTc interval and may also decrease the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. On the other hand, the possibility of deleterious effects in cirrhosis has not been completely eliminated. NSBBs may be associated with an increased risk of portal vein thrombosis, although this could be correlational artifact. Overall, we conclude that β-blockers in cirrhosis are much more of a friend than enemy.

Non-Selective Beta-Blockers Decrease Infection, Acute Kidney Injury Episodes, and Ameliorate Sarcopenic Changes in Patients with Cirrhosis: A Propensity-Score Matching Tertiary-Center Cohort Study

Background: Cirrhotic complications resulting from portal hypertension can be considerably reduced by non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs); however, scarce studies have investigated therapeutic agents for other complications. We aimed to investigate the effects of NSBBs on common cirrhotic complications of infection, acute kidney injury (AKI), chronic renal function declination, and sarcopenic changes. Methods: Medical records of hospitalization for cirrhosis with at least a 4-year follow-up were analyzed and selected using propensity-score matching (PSM). Generalized estimating equation (GEE) was applied to assess the association of NSBBs with infection requiring hospitalization and AKI. Chronic renal function declination was evaluated by slope of regression lines derived from reciprocal of the serum creatinine level. The covariates of CT-measured skeletal muscle index (SMI) alterations were analyzed by generalized linear mixed model. Results: Among the 4946 reviewed individuals, 166 (83 NSBB group, 83 non-NSBB group) were eligible. Using GEE, Charlson comorbidity index, Child-Pugh score and non-NSBB were risk factors for infection; non-NSBB group revealed a robust trend toward AKI, showed no significant difference with chronic renal function declination of NSBB group, and was negatively associated with SMI alteration. Conclusion: Chronic NSBB use lowered the episodes of infection requiring hospitalization and AKIs, whereas non-NSBB was associated with sarcopenic changes.

Perceptions on the management of varices and on the use of albumin in patients with cirrhosis among GI specialists in Austria

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension (PH) causes severe complications in patients with liver cirrhosis, such as variceal bleeding and ascites; however, data on the knowledge and perceptions on guideline recommendations for the management of varices and the use of albumin is scarce.

METHODS

We designed two structured surveys on (i) the management of varices and (ii) the use of albumin for Austrian physicians of specialized Gastro-Intestinal (GI) centers. The interviewed physicians were confronted spontaneously and provided ad hoc responses to the questionnaire.

RESULTS

In total, 158 surveys were completed. Interestingly, many specialists (30%) would recommend a follow-up gastroscopy after 1 year in patients with compensated cirrhosis without varices (i.e., overtreatment). For small varices, 81.5% would use non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) for primary prophylaxis (PP). For PP in patients with large varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) plus NSBB was preferred by 51.4% (i.e., overtreatment). Knowledge on the indication criteria for early TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt) was reported by 54.3%, but only 20% could report these criteria correctly. The majority (87.1%) correctly indicated a preference to use NSBB and EBL for secondary prophylaxis (SP). The majority of participating gastroenterologists reported no restrictions on the use of albumin (89.8%) in their hospitals. Of the interviewed specialists, 63.6% would use albumin in patients with SBP; however, only 11.4% would use the doses recommended by guidelines. The majority of specialists indicated using albumin at the recommended doses for hepatorenal syndrome (HRS-AKI, 86.4%) and for large volume paracentesis (LVP, 73.3%). The individual responses regarding albumin use for infections/sepsis, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and encephalopathy were heterogeneous.

CONCLUSION

The reported management of PH and varices is mostly adherent to guidelines, but endoscopic surveillance in patients without varices is too intense and EBL is overused in the setting of PP. Knowledge on the correct use of early TIPS must be improved among Austrian specialists. Albumin use is widely unrestricted in Austria; however, albumin is often underdosed in established indications.