Reversal of hepatorenal syndrome with the combination of norepinephrine and dopamine

Treatment for hepatorenal syndrome in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatorenal syndrome is defined as renal failure in people with cirrhosis in the absence of other causes. In addition to supportive treatment such as albumin to restore fluid balance, the other potential treatments include systemic vasoconstrictor drugs (such as vasopressin analogues or noradrenaline), renal vasodilator drugs (such as dopamine), transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and liver support with molecular adsorbent recirculating system (MARS). There is uncertainty over the best treatment regimen for hepatorenal syndrome.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for hepatorenal syndrome in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trial registers until December 2018 to identify randomised clinical trials on hepatorenal syndrome in people with cirrhosis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified eligible trials and collected data. The outcomes for this review included mortality, serious adverse events, any adverse events, resolution of hepatorenal syndrome, liver transplantation, and other decompensation events. We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio (OR), rate ratio, hazard ratio (HR), and mean difference (MD) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 25 trials (1263 participants; 12 interventions) in the review. Twenty-three trials (1185 participants) were included in one or more outcomes. All the trials were at high risk of bias, and all the evidence was of low or very low certainty. The trials included participants with liver cirrhosis of varied aetiologies as well as a mixture of type I hepatorenal syndrome only, type II hepatorenal syndrome only, or people with both type I and type II hepatorenal syndrome. Participant age ranged from 42 to 60 years, and the proportion of females ranged from 5.8% to 61.5% in the trials that reported this information. The follow-up in the trials ranged from one week to six months. Overall, 59% of participants died during this period and about 35% of participants recovered from hepatorenal syndrome. The most common interventions compared were albumin plus terlipressin, albumin plus noradrenaline, and albumin alone.There was no evidence of a difference in mortality (22 trials; 1153 participants) at maximal follow-up between the different interventions. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. There was no evidence of differences in the proportion of people with serious adverse events (three trials; 428 participants), number of participants with serious adverse events per participant (two trials; 166 participants), proportion of participants with any adverse events (four trials; 402 participants), the proportion of people who underwent liver transplantation at maximal follow-up (four trials; 342 participants), or other features of decompensation at maximal follow-up (one trial; 466 participants). Five trials (293 participants) reported number of any adverse events, and five trials (219 participants) reported treatment costs. Albumin plus noradrenaline had fewer numbers of adverse events per participant (rate ratio 0.51, 95% CrI 0.28 to 0.87). Eighteen trials (1047 participants) reported recovery from hepatorenal syndrome (as per definition of hepatorenal syndrome). In terms of recovery from hepatorenal syndrome, in the direct comparisons, albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide and albumin plus octreotide had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome than albumin plus terlipressin (HR 0.04; 95% CrI 0.00 to 0.25 and HR 0.26, 95% CrI 0.07 to 0.80 respectively). There was no evidence of differences between the groups in any of the other direct comparisons. In the network meta-analysis, albumin and albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome compared with albumin plus terlipressin.

FUNDING

two trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies; five trials were funded by parties who had no vested interest in the results of the trial; and 18 trials did not report the source of funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low-certainty evidence, there is no evidence of benefit or harm of any of the interventions for hepatorenal syndrome with regards to the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (proportion), number of serious adverse events per participant, any adverse events (proportion), liver transplantation, or other decompensation events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that albumin plus noradrenaline had fewer 'any adverse events per participant' than albumin plus terlipressin. Low- or very low-certainty evidence also found that albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide and albumin alone had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome compared with albumin plus terlipressin.Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered; employ blinding, avoid post-randomisation dropouts or planned cross-overs (or perform an intention-to-treat analysis); and report clinically important outcomes such as mortality, health-related quality of life, adverse events, and recovery from hepatorenal syndrome. Albumin plus noradrenaline and albumin plus terlipressin appear to be the interventions that should be compared in future trials.

Challenges in Renal Failure Treatment Before Liver Transplant

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in patients with cirrhosis and ascites on the waiting list for liver transplant. Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is an important cause of AKI among cirrhotics. A dynamic definition of AKI in patients with cirrhosis has been introduced and changed the diagnosis criteria. Liver transplantation remains the better option but the medical management of HRS has changed. Terlipressin plus albumin is currently the gold standard. Surgery and liver or kidney support systems have been recommended. Clinical trials will assess the most appropriate approach for the treatment of HRS in light of the revised diagnostic criteria.

Hepatorenal syndrome and novel advances in its management

Hepatorenal syndrome is a complication of end stage liver disease. It is a unique form of functional renal failure related to kidney vasoconstriction in the absence of underlying kidney pathology. Hepatorenal syndrome is classified into 2 types: type-1 HRS shows a rapid and progressive decline in renal function with a very poor prognosis (median survival of about 2 weeks); type-2 HRS has a more stable kidney failure, with a median survival of 6 months; its main clinical manifestation is refractory ascites. The most appropriate therapy for HRS is liver transplantation but only a minority of HRS patients undergo the procedure due to the high mortality; survival among liver transplant recipients is lower in HRS than among their counterparts without HRS. A large body of evidence, based on observational studies and randomized controlled trials, has been accumulated in the last decade showing that terlipressin represents a milestone in the management of HRS. According to our meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing terlipressin vs. placebo (five trials, n=243 patients), the pooled rate of patients who reversed HRS by terlipressin was 8.09 (95% CI, 3.52; 18.59) (P<0.001). Among vasoconstrictors, terlipressin (a V1 vasopressin agonist) is the most widely used; however, noradrenaline is another good choice. Vasoconstrictor drugs alone or with albumin reduce mortality compared with no intervention or albumin (RR of mortality, 0.82; 95% Confidence Intervals, 0.70; 0.96) (P<0.01). Two series of patients with HRS recurrence after the first treatment have recently shown that long-term therapy with terlipressin and albumin is beneficial as a bridge to liver transplant. Nevertheless, recovery of renal function can be achieved in less than 50% of patients with HRS after terlipressin use and the recovery of renal function may also be partial in patients who are defined full responders. Renal replacement therapy should not be considered a first-line therapy for HRS Clinical trials are under way in order to assess efficacy and safety of novel therapeutic agents for the treatment of type-1 and type-2 HRS.

Hepatorenal syndrome: a comprehensive overview for the critical care nurse

Over the past 50 years, the pathophysiology and features of the hepatorenal syndrome have been illuminated. The syndrome can be divided into 2 distinct clinical patterns: a rapidly progressive renal failure with an extremely poor prognosis (type 1) and a slow progressive renal failure that correlates with the degree of cirrhosis (type 2). Although our understanding of hepatorenal syndrome continues to grow, our current methods of treating this condition remain limited in their effectiveness. The only definitive therapy is liver transplantation. This is a review of the definition, pathophysiology, and current recommendations for management of hepatorenal syndrome with the critical care nurse in mind.

Pharmacologic approaches for volume excess in acute kidney injury (AKI)

Volume management is an integral component of the care of patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). Considerable controversy exists regarding the use of pharmacological agents for volume management. Although overt fluid overload is often seen in AKI and may prompt attention for the use of diuretics, often these agents are used in the absence of fluid retention. Over the last decade several new agents have become available for volume removal. We reviewed the literature on this topic and addressed four key questions for the appropriate utilization of these agents. These include the drug targets and mechanism of action of available agents; clinical goals and criteria for timing of intervention; adaptation of therapy for specific clinical settings and measures required for monitoring effectiveness and patient safety. This report details our current knowledge in this area, provides evidence-based clinical practice recommendations where appropriate, and formulates a research agenda to address unanswered questions.

Hepatorenal syndrome

Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is defined as functional renal failure that develops in patients with advanced liver disease. HRS may be either slowly or rapidly progressive (type I and II HRS, respectively). Untreated HRS carries a high mortality. Liver transplantation is the best available treatment for HRS. However, all patients with HRS are not suitable candidates for transplantation. Moreover, an organ is often not available in a timely manner in those who are candidates for transplantation. Treatment with vasoconstrictors (terlipressin, octreotide, and midodrine) and plasma expansion with albumin is beneficial and serves as a bridge to transplantation in such cases. The vasopressin analog, terlipressin, produces a sustained reversal of HRS in about 57% to 78% of the patients. The benefits of terlipressin are seen mainly in those who are also receiving albumin simultaneously. In those who improve, recurrence of HRS is reported to be relatively uncommon in the short and intermediate term. In the United States, terlipressin is not available, and octreotide and midodrine are often used for the medical management of HRS. Unfortunately, there are only limited uncontrolled data to support the use of these drugs for HRS. In those who respond to octreotide and midodrine, the subsequent placement of a transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic shunt (TIPS) has been shown to produce a sustained improvement in renal function. TIPS alone also improves renal functions in selected patients with HRS. The exact role of TIPS in HRS needs further evaluation, as patients with HRS are particularly at risk for complications such as encephalopathy and liver failure. Molecular adsorbent recirculating system (MARS) is an albumin-based dialysis system that has a promising role in the treatment of HRS and liver failure. MARS is a very expensive form of treatment, and further clinical trials are needed to establish its utility. Development of HRS can be prevented by adding albumin to the antibiotic regimen to treat spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and through pentoxifylline administration to the patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis.

Review article: current management of renal dysfunction in the cirrhotic patient

The United Network for Organ Sharing database revealed that over the last 4-5 years, an average of 1800 patients were removed from the cadaveric waiting list annually because of patients' death and an additional 400-500 were removed from the list because of the severity of their illnesses. The pre-transplant evaluation process, therefore, requires careful and continued assessment of the patient's pulmonary, cardiac and renal function among others. This article describes a systematic approach to the evaluation and management of renal dysfunction complicating the course of advanced liver disease, the pathogenic mechanisms and current recommendations for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome, and the indications for combined liver-kidney transplantation.

[Hepatorenal syndrome: from physiopathology to treatment]

OBJECTIVES

Data synthesis on physiopathology and treatment of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS).

DATA SOURCES

Data were searched in the Medline database from 1975 to 2002 using the following key-words: hepatorenal syndrome, ascite, cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

DATA EXTRACTION

Publications from 1986 to 2002 were selected depending on the quality of their methodology and their pertinence. One publication from 1975 was kept.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Hepatorenal syndrome is a common and severe complication of patients with advanced liver cirrhosis with ascites. It is a functional renal failure due to intense vasoconstriction of the renal circulation secondary to an intense splanchnic vasodilatation. Two types of HRS are differentiated mainly by the speed and the magnitude of the renal failure. Liver transplantation remains the best treatment but is rarely applicable because of the short survival after diagnosis. In the last few years, new therapy have been developed, vasoconstrictor drugs which mainly elicit their effects on the splanchnic circulation as vasopressin and principally its analogues ornipressine and terlipressine are effective in improving renal function and could act as bridge for liver transplantation. The place of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt remain to be evaluated.

CONCLUSION

Prognosis of patients with HRS remains poor but the pharmacologic treatment by terlipressine has improved the prognosis particularly in order to wait liver transplantation.

Effects of noradrenalin and albumin in patients with type I hepatorenal syndrome: a pilot study

Treatment of hepatorenal syndromes (HRSs) is currently based on vasopressin analogs. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of noradrenalin (NA) in the treatment of type 1 HRS. Between 1998 and 2000, 12 consecutive patients with type 1 HRS (7 men, 5 women; mean age, 54 +/- 11 years; mean Child-Pugh score, 11.3 +/- 1.7) were treated with intravenous NA (0.5-3 mg/h), in combination with intravenous albumin and furosemide. NA was given for 10 +/- 3 days, at a mean dose of 0.8 +/- 0.3 mg/h. Reversal of HRS was observed in 10 of 12 patients (83%; 95% confidence interval, 52%-98%) after a median of 7 days (range, 5-10 days). Serum creatinine levels fell from 358 +/- 161 to 145 +/- 78 micromol/L (P <.001), creatinine clearance rose from 13 +/- 9 to 40 +/- 15 mL/min (P =.003), and urinary sodium output increased from 8 +/- 14 to 52 +/- 72 mEq/d (P =.002). Changes in renal function under NA treatment were associated with an increase in mean arterial pressure (MAP; 65 +/- 7 to 73 +/- 9 mm Hg, P =.01) and a marked reduction in active renin (565 +/- 989 to 164 +/- 196 ng/L, P =.001) and aldosterone plasma concentrations (1,945 +/- 1,931 to 924 +/- 730 ng/mL, P =.02). There was one episode of reversible myocardial hypokinesia (in a patient on 1.5 mg/h NA) that did not recur after a dose reduction. In conclusion, NA combined with albumin and furosemide appears effective and safe for the treatment of type 1 HRS.

Hepatorenal syndrome. Definition, pathophysiology, and intervention

Hepatorenal syndrome is a well characterized entity in which vasodilation of splanchnic vessels and intense constriction of the renal cortical vasculature occur in concert. The condition is often fatal unless orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is performed. Many extracorporeal blood purification techniques exist which can be offered to patients awaiting OLT. Continuous hemofiltration, with or without other modalities such as therapeutic plasma exchange and hemoperfusion, may be helpful in improving the level of consciousness of these patients. Unfortunately, mortality and hepatic regeneration do not appear to be affected by such interventions. The development of a hybrid bioartifical liver support system and pharmacologic manipulation of the hemodynamic perturbations that occur in HRS provide particularly appealing prospects as a means of providing a bridge to liver transplantation in the future.

Hepatorenal failure

Since the description of HRS more than 100 years ago, significant advances have been made in understanding the pathophysiology of HRS and in the management of these patients. There is now a therapeutic armamentarium: medical (ornipressin plus plasma volume expansion), radiographic (TIPS shunt), and surgical (liver transplantation). The diagnosis of HRS is no longer synonymous with a death sentence; instead, it is a therapeutic challenge, and a coordinated approach by intensivists, hepatologists, nephrologists, interventional radiologists, and transplant surgeons is needed to continue to improve the prognosis of cirrhotic patients presenting with HRS. Increased understanding of HRS will allow preventative rather than therapeutic measures to be used. As in all fields of medicine, these advances will come only with innovative clinical investigation.

Renal dose dopamine does not alter the response to beta-adrenergic stimulation by isoproterenol in healthy human volunteers

OBJECTIVES

To determine if renal dose dopamine (3 microg/kg/min) alters the heart rate (HR) by itself, or if a dopamine infusion alters the HR response to bolus doses of the beta-adrenergic agonist isoproterenol in healthy human subjects.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

SETTING

Clinical laboratory of a university-affiliated academic medical center.

SUBJECTS

A total of 15 healthy nonpregnant women and men aged 21 to 44 years.

INTERVENTIONS

Subjects were monitored continuously with bedside ECG, pulse oximetry, and ambulatory ECG recording to measure the maximal HR response to separate injections of 10, 20, and 30 ng/kg of isoproterenol, given before, during, and after the infusion of 3 microg/kg/min of dopamine.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Dopamine in the absence of isoproterenol did not alter baseline HR significantly (62.7+/-2.2 beats/min without dopamine; 65.4+/-2.2 with dopamine; p=0.15). All three doses of isoproterenol increased HR significantly above baseline, both in the presence and absence of dopamine (p<0.001). Dopamine infusion resulted in a higher HR following isoproterenol only for the 20-ng/kg dose. The incremental increases in HR, defined as the difference between peak HR following isoproterenol and baseline HR, were not increased during dopamine infusion for any of the doses of isoproterenol. Nausea was reported by 5 of the 15 subjects during the dopamine infusion.

CONCLUSIONS

In healthy human subjects, infusion of 3 microg/kg/min of dopamine does not significantly increase the HR when combined with beta-adrenergic stimulation using isoproterenol, suggesting neither an additive nor antagonistic interaction between the two drugs. While our study did not demonstrate an increase in HR in healthy subjects, the risk of increasing the chronotropic response to beta-adrenergic inotropic medications with "renal dose" dopamine in critically ill patients needs to be investigated. The frequency of nausea during dopamine infusion also may influence consideration of using dopamine to augment splanchnic blood flow and renal function in conscious patients.

Is renal dose dopamine protective or therapeutic? Yes

In conclusion, dopamine has the unique ability, compared with other catecholamines, to improve renal blood flow, glomerular filtration rate, sodium excretion, and creatinine clearance, independent of its cardiac effects. In addition, low-dose dopamine can decrease renal and systemic vascular resistance, suppress aldosterone secretion, and interact with atrial natriuretic factor. Because of these clinically significant properties, dopamine has been used successfully to improve and treat acute oliguric renal failure in a variety of clinical situations as just described. In addition, there were no adverse or toxic cardiac effects, such as tachyarrhythmias or hypertension, detected with low-dose dopamine in studies reviewed for this publication. By increasing renal and mesenteric vasodilation, dopamine has been shown to be beneficial in preserving renal function in cardiac surgery, vascular surgery, liver transplantation, contrast-induced nephropathy, hypertension, and pediatric patients. A therapeutic renal effect has been observed in patients with hepatorenal syndrome or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, in patients requiring vasopressors and IABP, and in selected cases of acute oliguric renal failure and shock. Furthermore, the combination of low-dose dopamine with furosemide or prostaglandin results in enhanced renal effects. Further investigation is necessary to evaluate the important and specific therapeutic role of low-dose dopamine through prospective, randomized, double-blind studies. Until those data are available, the plethora of clinical evidence supporting the ability of low-dose dopamine to augment renal function continues to grow. For those who are skeptical, we offer the following suggestion: "The obscure we see eventually, the obvious takes a little longer"--E.R. Murrow.

Renal hemodynamics during norepinephrine and low-dose dopamine infusions in man

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the effects of pressor doses of norepinephrine and low-dose dopamine (3 micrograms/kg/min) on renal hemodynamics in man, as well as to determine the clinical relevance of combining dopamine with norepinephrine.

DESIGN

Prospective, single-blind, randomized study.

SETTING

Clinical research unit of a tertiary care hospital. SUBJECTS. Six healthy male volunteers ranging in age between 20 and 28 yrs.

INTERVENTIONS

The subjects were assigned randomly to four treatments (1 wk apart) in which renal hemodynamics and electrolyte excretion were assessed. Treatments consisted of 180-min infusions of the following: a) 0.9% sodium chloride (control); b) pressor doses of norepinephrine; c) dopamine at 3 micrograms/kg/min; and d) pressor doses of norepinephrine and dopamine at 3 micrograms/kg/min. Pressor doses of norepinephrine was defined as doses required to increase mean arterial pressure (MAP) by 20 mm Hg.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Glomerular filtration rate and renal blood flow were derived from inulin and para-aminohippurate clearances, respectively. Urine output and urine solute excretion were also determined. The mean norepinephrine dose required to increase MAP by 22 +/- 2 mm Hg was 118 +/- 30 ng/kg/min (range 76 to 164). After the addition of dopamine, similar doses of norepinephrine resulted in an MAP increase of 15 +/- 4 mm Hg. Glomerular filtration rate and urine output were comparable under all conditions. The infusion of norepinephrine decreased renal blood flow from 1241 +/- 208 to 922 +/- 143 mL/min/1.73 m2 (p = .03). The addition of dopamine returned renal blood flow to baseline values. The clearance of urine sodium increased significantly with the infusion of dopamine alone (p = .03). All subjects completed the four treatment periods. Adverse events, manifested mostly as palpitations and flushing, were rare and self-limiting.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of dopamine (3 micrograms/kg/min) to pressor doses of norepinephrine normalized renal blood flow in healthy volunteers. These hemodynamic changes were not reflected in urine output and glomerular filtration rate; hence, these monitoring parameters may be unreliable indicators of renal function in the setting of vasopressor therapy. In addition, systemic effects were observed with dopamine (3 micrograms/kg/min), as indicated by a decrease in MAP.